Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The framers of the U.S. Constitution created the Electoral College as a result of a compromise for the presidential election process. During the debate, some delegates felt that a direct popular election would lead to the election of each state's favorite son and none would emerge with sufficient popular majority to govern the country. Other delegates felt that giving Congress the power to select the president would deny the people their right to choose. After all, the people voted for their representatives to the federal legislature. The compromise was to set up an Electoral College system that allowed voters to vote for electors, who would then cast their votes for candidates, a system described in Article II, section 1 of the Constitution.

    Each State is allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representatives (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the Census).

    Whichever party slate wins the most popular votes in the State becomes that State's Electors-so that, in effect, whichever presidential ticket gets the most popular votes in a State wins all the Electors of that State.

    The debate has started again as to whether the U.S. Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process. Some promote eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged. Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem. The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state. This would eliminate the "winner take all" system thus allowing for all the votes to count. A voter is more apt to believe their vote counted when a percentage of popular votes are taken into account rather than the "all or nothing" system currently in existence. Further, this new system would integrate the desire for a popular vote for president with the need for the individual states to determine who actually gets elected. For example, in Alabama, President Bush won 63% of the popular vote and therefore would be awarded 5.67 electoral points as compared to Senator Kerry with 37% of the popular vote and 3.33 electoral points. In the event of a tie, the national popular vote results would decide the outcome.

    If one tabulated the final totals from Election 2004, they would find Bush with 274.92 electoral points versus Kerry with 257.71. The existing electoral college votes shows Bush 286 to Kerry 252. I believe this compromise would reflect a truer intent of the will of the people as exercised through their states. This would also prevent the smaller "red" and "blue" states from being virtually ignored in favor of the larger "battleground" states.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It's a poor idea. Going by popular vote only further ensures that areas with the greatest population (cities) are placed at a higher priority than other residential areas.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I believe that the electoral college is the proper way to choose our president, but it does need a little bit of tweaking in order to be more democratic.

    I think that each state should be divided regions based on the number of electoral votes it gets. So Arkansas, having 6 votes, is divided into 6 different regions. Each region gets 1 of Arkansas's votes so that A candidate wins parts of a state rather than the whole state. I believe that this would be a more accurate representation of the people's desire for a president and would still ensure equal attention for all areas.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moncal)
    I believe that the electoral college is the proper way to choose our president, but it does need a little bit of tweaking in order to be more democratic.

    I think that each state should be divided regions based on the number of electoral votes it gets. So Arkansas, having 6 votes, is divided into 6 different regions. Each region gets 1 of Arkansas's votes so that A candidate wins parts of a state rather than the whole state. I believe that this would be a more accurate representation of the people's desire for a president and would still ensure equal attention for all areas.
    but then you would have the same gerrymandering problems with politicians re-districting as we have now. Regions would eventually be divided just to maximize the votes going to whichever party is in power in each state.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    i wish they had something like the electoral college here in the UK...

    consider the 2001 election here in the UK where there are 659 seats up for grabs.

    Labour : 10,724,953 votes / 412 seats
    Conservative : 8,357,615 votes / 166 seats
    Liberal Democrats : 4,814,321 votes / 52 seats

    notice how labour only got about 25% more votes than the conservatives, but managed 250% more seat wins?

    if the USA adjusted to a direct vote type scenario, the above would occur more often over there.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by technik)
    i wish they had something like the electoral college here in the UK...

    consider the 2001 election here in the UK where there are 659 seats up for grabs.

    Labour : 10,724,953 votes / 412 seats
    Conservative : 8,357,615 votes / 166 seats
    Liberal Democrats : 4,814,321 votes / 52 seats

    notice how labour only got about 25% more votes than the conservatives, but managed 250% more seat wins?

    if the USA adjusted to a direct vote type scenario, the above would occur more often over there.
    Well, the electoral college is only used for choosing the president, so that really couldn't be put in place without changing the entire election system. And, no one will do that.
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    but then you would have the same gerrymandering problems with politicians re-districting as we have now. Regions would eventually be divided just to maximize the votes going to whichever party is in power in each state.
    It's not a bad idea, though as Satori mentioned, there's the probability of gerrymandering.

    I would change your idea slightly..........
    If Arkansas has 6 electoral votes, then 2 of the 6 votes belong to the senators, those 2 votes would go the the winner of the entire state. The remaining 4 votes belong to the reps of the 4 districts, those votes would go to the winner of each district.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Douglas)
    It's not a bad idea, though as Satori mentioned, there's the probability of gerrymandering.

    I would change your idea slightly..........
    If Arkansas has 6 electoral votes, then 2 of the 6 votes belong to the senators, those 2 votes would go the the winner of the entire state. The remaining 4 votes belong to the reps of the 4 districts, those votes would go to the winner of each district.
    That would be interesting.
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by Moncal)
    That would be interesting.
    Moncal, my post to Satori was meant to go to you. I hit the wrong reply button.

    [edit] Change of subject: Why did elpaw lock your MJ post?? I thought it was perfectly legit.[edit]
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Douglas)
    It's not a bad idea, though as Satori mentioned, there's the probability of gerrymandering.

    I would change your idea slightly..........
    If Arkansas has 6 electoral votes, then 2 of the 6 votes belong to the senators, those 2 votes would go the the winner of the entire state. The remaining 4 votes belong to the reps of the 4 districts, those votes would go to the winner of each district.
    That's the system they already use in Maine and Nebraska isn't it? However there's never actually occured a result where a district has split in the opposite direction from the state.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chrism)
    That's the system they already use in Maine and Nebraska isn't it? However there's never actually occured a result where a district has split in the opposite direction from the state.
    Not exactly, I don't think. I think it is closer to what I suggested.
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by Chrism)
    That's the system they already use in Maine and Nebraska isn't it? However there's never actually occured a result where a district has split in the opposite direction from the state.
    Yeah Chrism, yer right about Maine and Nebraska. Last November, the voters in Colorado defeated a similar measure to split the votes.

    You're probably right about Maine and Nebraska not actually splitting the vote. I don't know.

    I'm surprised you know that much detail about the electoral system......being a furener and all.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Douglas)
    Yeah Chrism, yer right about Maine and Nebraska. Last November, the voters in Colorado defeated a similar measure to split the votes.

    You're probably right about Maine and Nebraska not actually splitting the vote. I don't know.

    I'm surprised you know that much detail about the electoral system......being a furener and all.
    Electoral law is something that interests me for some reason, as do US presidential elections. Combine the two and you have a match made in heaven. Plus I studied US politics part of my A Level in Politics.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.