Electoral college reform...my idea...good or bad?

Question

In most states other than Nebraska and Maine,it's a winner take-all system. California's debating over populism vs district electoral. I think there are flaws in either desired system.

Populism--Will lead to urbanization of the political structure ie all a candidate will do is go to big cities. A vast amount of the country will be neglected.

District--Districts aren't proportional to the population necessarily and that might distort a level populism most Americans desire as well.
-----------------
My alternative is to establish in each state a system in which population is divided by electoral..which usually equals around 650k per electoral. These electorals will be devised by 6 judges 3democrat/3 republican...and they must be approved by the state legislature every 2 years (or else you use the former).

This way parts of the south are open to democrats, and parts of the north and california are opene to republicans. It would still bring a broad concensus,and apply some populism

Ask any question if you wish to understand my idea....then readjust your answer.

Kirk N--If I'm a candidate, which is a more efficient place to go....Houston, Tx or some small town in New Hampshire. Currently New Hamsphire is a prime state for primaries, because it is so critical to winning the initial primaries. The primaries are almost a bigger source of politics than elections.

But either way, you're relegating the efficiency of going to a big city and neglecting the least populated areas. No one goes to california in the repub side, and few dems go through the red south. This would open it up to them, and they'd have to be diverse and broadly appealing. You have to see the difference or else your just attached to idea that you've not thought through.

Robert k:Generally I agree about 2000. I think the very nature of what we have now, almost makes whole regions so isolated to other political perspectives, and reduce democratic behaviour. 600k is a lot closer to me, than 7 million. It would give people more of reason to vote, because it would bring them closer to the candidate.

Now it seems like a few states (e.g Ohio, and florida) spell wins or loses...to me that sounds incredibly distasteful.

Mindshift--I was thinking of adding that to 'my plan'...ie the part where runoff are funneled through, to restrict it to two candidates.

I disagree with the popular vote part though, because of it's effect on isolating the campaign and influencing people in less populated areas. I'd rather have 'swing' counties in every state, than swing states....the way we have it now won't last and I don't think shifting it to big urban areas will do us any good, either.

And kudos on the primary view. It's yucky now.

Answer 1

Okay, you want to adjust it a bit. Your plan doesn't seem bad.

But I would suggest, first, that the electoral college has served us rather well. The only time it failed recently was in 2000. But that was the fault of a particularly close vote. Had we not had they system we do, then hanging chads and pregnant punches, etc. would have been an issue in all fifty states, not just Florida.

I'll bet that election would have been contentious under any conceivable election structure.

Answer 2

I agree that the electoral college has become a liability. Look at all the states positioning for influence by changing the date of their primary. A party's nominee for president is often decided before the most populous states have their primary vote. I think the U.S. should do away with the electoral college. Let all the states select delegates by whatever means each party wants, but let the presidency be decided by popular vote.

Moreover, in order to facilitate third party candidates I think any vote tally that ends in less than a 50% majority should result in a runoff between the two candidates with the highest votes. Right now a third party candidate acts as a spoiler, "stealing" votes from either the Democrat or Republican. Many voters may support a third party or independent candidate, but don't want to chance the candidate they like least winning by a sort of default. So voters vote for the "lesser evil," rather than the candidate they truly prefer.

Initially there may not appear to be much difference in voting, but over time I think we would likely see candidates with more centrist agendas. At present our two parties are making promises to special interest fringe groups in order to win, while ignoring the needs of mainstream Americans.

Alternatively, weighted voting where each voter lists candidates by preference (#1, #2, #3, etc.) is a good possibility. Votes are tabulated differently, but the result is more inclusive of alternative views. However, only a runoff would allow those who voted for the losing candidate(s) to revote for the "lesser evil" candidate.

Answer 3

The electoral college is necessary. I think a better solution is in the form of tax reform. The feds shouldn't have unrestrained ability to tax and spend as they see fit. Why not alter the tax form to allow the taxpayer to have input on his dollars. Flat tax of 15% for everybody. Then you take departments - roads, airways, national defense, etc, have a set percentage of the budget. Then you have another 100 categories that you can direct your money to go to. Medical research, health care for the poor, food stamps, etc. You direct your tax money to things your would rather see.
The only way the defense budget can go to extremes is when the President and Congress declare war.
Now the libs can help the poor and the greedy cons can help whatever they want.
But I automatically send 25 to 50% for the basics and the rest to stopping pollution that is the budget they have to work with.
This takes away alot of the political power and the stupidity of pork barrel politics.
If you want to fund New Orleans have fun.
If you want more defense money give it to them.

Answer 4

The candidate getting the majority of the votes must be declared thew winner instead of the electoral college which is not the true will of the people.

Answer 5

Why cant it just be simplified and let the popular vote win......I don't believe the big cities vote for the same people. I think popular vote best, since the president is suppose to be a representation of his people.