If we could change the US electoral system?

Question

I'm referring to the electoral system for the US House of Representatives. What type of electoral system would you vote for if it was a ballot proposal? Instant Runoff Voting (like Australia), Single Transferable Vote (like Ireland), Mixed Member Proportional (like Germany), Mixed Member Majoritarian (like Japan), Closed Party List PR (like Argentina) or Open List PR (like Belgium)? By the way, PR means Proportional Representation (and it doesn't have anything to do with racial or gender representation, it's party representation; in other words, a party gets a number of seats in proportion to its votes) and I'm not referring to the Electoral College.

Some of you talked about the Electoral College. And you indirectly said it helps the two-party system. But any type of reform can help viable third parties I think. Nice observation (and I thought my research was in vain!)

geegee, you're not going crazy! It's the answers because I was specific about the electoral system for the House of Representatives (which is the simple majority we copied from the UK in 435 Congressional gerrymandered districts). My question was clear (if you follow the article, I also point out some of the other voting systems used in the world and examples of countries using that system). But it's OK!

geegee, you're not going crazy! It's the answers because I was specific about the electoral system for the House of Representatives (which is the simple majority we copied from the UK in 435 Congressional gerrymandered districts). My question was clear (if you follow the article, I also point out some of the other voting systems used in the world and examples of countries using that system). I'm a political junkie but it's OK to ask!

Answer 1

Proportional representation. Allows more opportunity for third parties to gain some power.

Answer 2

There has been talk of either eliminating the Electoral College or reforming it, but nothing has ever come of it. We've had several disputed elections in which the loser actually had more popular votes, but lost the Electoral vote. I don't need to re-open the wounds from the dastardly stolen election of 2000. We are, all too aware of it. In 1876, Samuel J. Tilden had more popular votes than Rutherford B. Hayes. 17 Electoral votes from several Southern states were in dispute. A special electoral commission awarded all 17 votes to hayes, thus giving him a 185 to 184 Electoral Vote win. In 1888, Grover Cleveland, running for re-election, had more popular votes than Benjamin Harrison, but the Hoosier Republican had more Electoral votes, and therefore, won the election. Cleveland came back four years later, and beat Harrison, becoming the only president to serve two non-consecutive terms. In 1824, Andrew Jackson led in the popular vote, but as none of the candidates received a majority of the Electoral Vote, the election was thrown into the House of Representatives. The second-place finisher John Quincy Adams was elected. In 1800, the election was thrown into the House of Representatives. In those days, Presidents and Vice-Presidents did not run as a team. Whoever got the highest number of votes was elected President, whoever had the second highest was elected Vice-President. Both Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr had 73 Electoral Votes each. Incumbent President John Adams came in third with 65 Electoral votes, and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney had 64 Electoral Votes. After 36 ballots, the House elected Thomas Jefferson as president and Aaron Burr as Vice-President. The Electoral College definitely needs to be reformed. The 'winner take all' system, theoretically allows someone to win the 12 most populated states, lose the remaining 38 states and still win the presidency. The Electoral College should be reformed with one Electoral Vote per Congressional District. Therefore, if in the case of a state like California with 50 + votes, the vote would be divided as per the results of each Congressional District.

Answer 3

We should not change the electoral college system. As it is now, everyone's vote matters. If the system were changed to a popular vote system of any type, then very quickly many people would cease to vote because NY, CA, San Antonio, and Chicago could elect the President.
It is bad enough that the news media projects the winner before the polls close. That should NOT be allowed. Everyone's vote should count. If the winner had not been projected as Gore, many more voters would have cast their ballots and maybe Gore would have won, or Bush would have had a majority.

Answer 4

I think the popular vote makes the most sense. The reason the electoral vote was established was to keep people who were uneducated from voting and "screwing everything up." although there are still many people who would not be informed enough to vote, i think the general populace should be given the benefit of the doubt

Answer 5

Either I don't understand your question or many of the other answers don't.
I understand it as being about the House votes, the Senate & Congress. Could I be wrong?
If you are indeed speaking about the House votes, I believe it should stay as it is now. Sometimes I win & sometimes I lose, but I'll take my chances on how it now stands.
If you are indeed speaking of the Electoral College, get rid of it!

Answer 6

In my opinion the electoral system should be ELIMINATE COMPLETELY. There is no need for this system. This is how bush excuse of a president made it into office in 2000. He was elected by we the people. He was elected by his political cronies. The other guy actually won by PEOPLE VOTES. So this means your vote actually mean NOTHING.

Answer 7

What an interesting twist on an old question! I am vaguely dissatiafied with the electoral college. The last presidential election was surely dissatisfying to winners and losers alike for its lack of clear -- and possibly fair --result.. But I don't know enough about the many alternatives that exist, so thanks for pointing them out for further consideration!!
Added: Oh. Duh. Would have been nice if I had finished reading the question lol

Answer 8

The current system is the constitutional system, and as such any change in it would be fundamentally catastrophic.

EDIT-Maliki-technically, we DO have term limits for everyone. It is up to us to vote our ancient senators and reps out of office. I should know. I live in the Land of Kerry and Kennedy. Sigh.

Answer 9

none of the above.

i advocate outlawing the co-mingling of monies to elect multiple candidates across state lines.

Simply put i am for the abolishing of party politics all together, return voting to the local issue it was meant to be.

Also term limits are needed for congress.

Answer 10

one man one vote.