I asked the same question about the UK system. So this one is for the Americans.
2006-11-01 18:39:48 · 13 answers · asked by Part Time Cynic 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I meant presedential elections since living in the UK i don't really understand US local government.
2006-11-01 19:08:10 · update #1
tony: very good point, landmass/population issue is not so much issue in the UK i think
2006-11-01 19:10:54 · update #2
Anything to get rid of the electoral college!
2006-11-01 18:41:41 · answer #1 · answered by coreyander 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
It is already proportional, in general. Some states still use the "if the people voting in the state go 51% one way then all electoral college votes go that way" and then others have split their electoral votes to recognize popular voting percentages. Example: (all numbers used are not real, just for demonstration)
a state has 40% Rep and 60% Dem (or the other way around, doesn't matter) then the electoral votes, all 10, would go to the Dems in the first version. In te second version 4 electoral votes would go to Reps and 6 would go to Dems. This is a state thing though, not something the federal government has control over (technically speaking.)
This doesn't answer the question as to which is better, popular or electoral voting. Electoral was set up because the sheer amount of work needed for disbursing, collecting, and counting ballots in the 1700s was prohibitive. These days it can be done in a single day, we all watch popular vote tallies on television, although these tallies are always disputed and there is no single system for voting (again it's a state thing).
2006-11-02 02:57:58 · answer #2 · answered by Chris A 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The electoral system is a 'hack' system (they vote for the popular result in a given state, usually), but oddly it does balance out the population verses land and forces the president candidates not to ignore 75% of the country (in landmass). Heck, if it were just a popular vote, I'd focus on New York, Cali, Florida, Texas, maybe another couple big population states and take the popular vote. Of course those population states would get what they want and small, Midwestern population states could be turned into waste dumps for the garbage collection done in the big 6 states... why not? they don't have a say anyway... it's sole based on proportional population!
I think to make it proportional to population would short change those in states that do not have a high population.... who ironically make up for the majority of the land mass in the USA. And those big 6 states could easily use the federal government as an instrument of plunder!
2006-11-02 02:52:34 · answer #3 · answered by Tony C 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There are many PR systems in use across the world.
The system that the USA already uses for electing it's president is and electoral college, where each state has a 'number of points'. These points are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state.
These points are considered to be unfair as they were calculated a long time ago and the bigger states have more points. In 2000 Al Gore won the popular vote 1,000,000 more people voted for him than voted for George W Bush, but Bush won on the Electoral College points.
The presidental candidate who gets the highest number of points wins.
There does need to be a new system for electing a president in the US, I'm not sure that a PR system would benefit the US for presidential elections as often there are only two or three candidates, PR systems better reflect smaller groups.
If the USA used a First Past The Post System for their presidential election, where all the votes are counted and as each state declares these votes are added together the final winner would be the candidate with the most votes.
2006-11-02 03:48:40 · answer #4 · answered by thebigtombs 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No.
The United States is a Federation of States. Part of the agreement among member States, is that all States have some sort of representation because they are separate sovereign States. That's why Rhode Island has two Senators, as does New York. Otherwise, the populated states would make all the decisions for Rhode Island --- as well as Maine. And States have different problems, that must be addressed in different ways.
The President is one office that is not allowed to be elected by popular vote: the choice of "electors" is up to each of the State legislatures. The legislators usually opt to use the popular vote, however, probably to Cover Their A's. This is another instance where the Founders thought it was wise to balance "mob-rule" against "tyranny-rule" by creating a democratic-republic, where the people vote indirectly on some things. To dump the electoral college in the United States would invalidate the conditions of the basic agreement, meaning the ratification of the Constitution of the United States would be null and void.
Ask this question of the Canadians. You will find that people in the Yukon, Alberta, Manitoba or British Columbia, have an innate resentment of Toronto, which rules them by virtue of its populace.
2006-11-02 03:06:54 · answer #5 · answered by Boomer Wisdom 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
YES,
The framers of the Constitution didn't quite trust the voters. To prevent them from electing a king into power they created the Electoral College. Supposedly wiser minds would prevail and change their vote.
Now day’s only trusted and true party members are allowed to go into the Electoral College. A few members have changed their votes, but they have never changed the result of the election.
The system is archaic, and no longer needed. With the news media, telephones, and the Internet it is easy for people to get a political education, if you want to. We have the most informed voters in 200 years. With our long standing of having an elected president there is no danger that America will elect a king. George Bush Junior is one of the most powerful presidents of recent history, but he has checks and balances against him and there is no way that he can become a king. If he tried to order the military to move against the US people, those men and women would refuse those orders.
Another problem with the Electoral College is that it gives more power to states with a higher population (and more votes), so politicians can point game with the larger states. They don't need the most votes; they only need to win a few key states.
Replacing the Electoral College with a straight popularity vote would require an amendment to the Constitution, but I think it is high time that we do it.
2006-11-02 02:53:27 · answer #6 · answered by Dan S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In a way it does. The number of Electors in each state is determined by the number of representatives in the US House of Representatives for that state. But then it becomes winner-take all (electoral votes) based on the popular vote in the state. The presidential candidate with the highest number of electoral votes wins.
2006-11-02 02:46:55 · answer #7 · answered by Skip F 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It would take a cultural change. Right now PR exists in a few communities where intellectuals have supported it. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/articles/case_for_proportional_representa.htm
In Northern Ireland and Israel it has caused divisions and anomalies and increased the power of extremists.
Of course that may be happening anyway in the USA.
2006-11-02 02:47:19 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes
2006-11-02 03:00:02 · answer #9 · answered by Phlodgeybodge 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It should go strictly by the popular vote not the electoral college. that system should be done away with.
2006-11-02 02:45:00 · answer #10 · answered by rrxdeadman 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋