OpenGov - Open Government Brainstorm

This misunderstands the history, logic and dynamics of the Electoral College voting system.

Lets get with the program. We have technology. Why are we using 17th century voting processes? bank websites. For examle, have secure processes for managing money online. Voting can be done the same way and can be ensured to be fair without the possibilty for human corruption. If it can work with our money, it can work with our votes.

Social choice (i.e voting) has nothing to do with technology. It's all about how to discover the general will and also how to get people to accept the process. If you fail in either objective, your method fails. (BTW, so far most people accept the voting process we have.)

Once more, the USA has never instituted a simple majoritarian national voting system. Perhaps it would be better to ask why, than to condemn the status quo.

Our form of government is a Constitutional Republic, a nation of laws... not of men. The electoral college has nothing to do with communications or technology. The electoral college exists to protect federalism, seperation of powers, protect minority groups and small states from the tyranny of the majority.

Jbristor: Thanks for a fresh breath of reason. Ignorance about our system of voting is probably the most egregious failing of our educational system and our popular media.

I teach political science to university students and more than half of them don't even know what democracy is. They mostly grasp at the "one person, one vote" definition, not knowing that even Iran and Venezuela can claim that.

In theory this is a good idea, but in practice, we should replace, not eliminate, the electoral college, so that small states can still have a say, and to prevent third party candidates from messing up election results.

Merveilleux: Sorry, but why? Why replace or eliminate what works? I haven't read one cogent argument why the EC doesn't work the way it was intended. Most objectors think it's undemocratic (it's not).

In each state we vote on our govenors where every ones vote is counted and the highest one wins. In the state of Califona alone there are millions of people that vote and the highest wins. But when it comes to voting for the president the votes are turned into someone who then makes a vote and has the choice to make his or her own choice. I feel at that point my vote no longer counts. I want may vote to count!

I not see a continued value in the Electoral College. It should be stricken.

Brett:

Your point is well-taken but I'll explain why it doesn't apply on the national level. Political interests vary geographically. In the USA regional political divides have existed for over 200 years - they're not going away. Our governing units are cities, counties, and states, and that's how we vote.

In the past the political divide has been between the midwest and the east, other times between the south and the north (Civil War?). You know that red-state, blue-state thing? - it's a division between urban and rural politics. But all are part of this great big union of several states.

The EC (and the Senate) help insure these geographic divides don't tear the union apart. That's a good thing. And all during our history the party that loses a presidential election wants to abolish the EC. (Most recently Republicans in 1960, Democrats in 2000) Big surprise.

sobi: you don't see it because you're not looking. Why do you think we have a US Senate?

I am familiar with the design. I do not believe that the contest among states (2 senators per state) is the same as the EC.

The EC was a barrier between popular vote and the position of President.

It should be removed. It is improper.

OK, I'll try again, but you have offered no argument against the way the EC functions - only that you don't like it. But that doesn't matter.

When do the EC and popular results differ? Only when the popular vote is too close to determine a clear winner according to the will of the people. A few thousand votes here and there are statistically insignificant in a voting population of 130 million. To argue that a result that close is definitive is absurd and invites greater conflict over the result.

The distribution of support then becomes the more important criterion.

What you refer to as statistically insignificant may well be. It is, however, as valid as a geographical separation.

The EC converts close calls into larger differences for the purpose of resolving election winners. I understand this.

I also do not like it. It is a distortion. Why do you think it is a more ethical distortion than permitting the popular vote govern the call?

A few thousand votes here and there are not insignificant in the minds of those few thousand voters. They are entitled to have vote count with the same impact as any other vote.

If a voter votes against the tide in their state, the EC steps in and reduces the value of that vote for purposes of eliminating further contest.

It isn't so much the value of any given vote, but the dynamics operate to increase majority voting over minority voting.

It thus works in the wrong direction for my preferences. Majority tyranny is the major drawback in democratic institutions. The EC amplifies that.

Okay?

It doesn't seem like you have the dynamics right or understand the rules. The EC actually prevents a tyranny of the majority. Majority is based on some notion of the most votes, yes? So the EC prevents highly populated regions - say the 10 largest cities in America, from controlling the outcome. (This would be bad because urban political interests differ from rural and suburban. All must be taken into account for the democracy to be just.)

A simple majoritarian voting rule, which we have never had in US national politics, would allow the majority to exert its will on the minority. That's seems fine when picking a president, but not when making laws. But the EC will only come into play when the vote is close to 50-50. Then the EC will measure how support for a candidate is dispersed geographically. The widest distribution insures the most politically stable result.

There is nothing anti-democratic or unjust about this. It does not increase or decrease the value of any individual's vote. This is a misinterpretation. Every state resident is equal. This is how it should be in a federation of states.

Dear Michael,

I think the main problem people have with the electoral college is that they cannot see their counted amongst those that voted. If you live in a low population state in the western United States, your vote often does not seem to matter as the outcome of the election has already been determined by the time you even cast your vote. I think many people in such states do not vote as they do not see a connection between their vote and the result. It may be simple, but that seems to be the psychology of it. I wonder how many more people would vote if we switched to a popular vote, instead of the electoral college. It would definitely shift voting politics, and that mean a much more engaged politics as you would not simply need to 'bag' certain key states.

Spiral: A popular vote doesn't solve the problem you cite or deliver the scenario you think. With a popular vote CA and NY would have much greater weight because they have high population density. Why? Because that's where the votes are! You win the urban regions, you win the election. This is bad because our politics is often split between urban and rural interests.

Take CA for instance - with a popular vote CA becomes much more important to a presidential candidate than Wyoming or Arkansas. So campaign strategies have to focus on SF, LA and SD. To get those votes the candidates would have to promise to meet those voters' demands. Right now CA and NY are in the worst budget crisis of most of the states. With a popular vote they would be able to force the Fed govt to redistribute resources from the 48 states to their two states or risk losing their votes to the opposition. Would this be a good thing? Definitely not because the level of resentment of voters paying taxes in those other 48 states would rise to the temper of a revolution.

If a voter wants its state to have a bigger impact all they have to do it make the state competitive, i.e. a swing state. This means centrist on national political priorities. It means being far left (CA, MA) or far right (WY, OK) won't work. Don't we want to encourage people to come to the center of compromise on national political issues? Our system rewards that while punishing people who prefer to live on the fringe. Fringe politics can only pull a society apart.

The popular vote is a psychological/emotional crutch that really doesn't accomplish what people hope. Readers here have to understand that no voting system is perfect (google Arrow's Impossibility theorem and the Voting Paradox) but all have strengths and weaknesses. The strength of the voting system we have is that it forces compromise and movement toward the center. With a large heterogeneous population across a wide geography this is very important. In the USA voters living in San Francisco and rural Alabama must come to a mutually acceptable understanding on national politics or the whole union thing falls apart.

When it comes to national priorities, voters in America should realize that they don't matter as individuals, only as a part of the greater whole - that greater whole is the integrity of the union.