it's broken, so let's fix it

[metaphorge]

Here's an idea I like a lot: a plan to correct the disproprtionate representation of less populous states in presidential elections by legally circumventing the Electoral College:

"Koza's scheme calls for an interstate compact that would require states to throw all of their electoral votes behind the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of which candidate wins in each state. The plan doesn't require all 50 states to join, but a combination of states that represent a majority (at least 270) of the electoral votes. If the largest states join in the agreement, only 11 would be needed."

If this is a go, then all that has to be done is to figure a way to counteract the disproportional representation of less populous states in the Senate. If we're going to claim that the United States is for "one man, one vote" then that should be what happens in practice.

Comments

[thiebes.livejournal.com]

Disproportional representation of less populous states in the Senate is by design though. It's so that the majority populous states don't have too great an advantage over the less populous states.

Personally I think we should go back to the State legislatures deciding who are the Senators from the state.

[metaphorge.livejournal.com]

Disproportional representation of less populous states in the Senate is by design though. It's so that the majority populous states don't have too great an advantage over the less populous states.

I agree, though in a limited sense... I think the balance is too far out of whack at the moment, especially when you're talking about really populous states with divergent internal interests like California and New York. I see no reason that Rhode Island and North Dakota deserve the exact same voice in the Senate that California and New York have. Maybe if states had between two and five Senators... this would ensure some balancing without it being too over-the-top.

Personally I think we should go back to the State legislatures deciding who are the Senators from the state.

Agreed.

[spc476.livejournal.com]

I see no reason that Rhode Island and North Dakota deserve the exact same voice in the Senate that California and New York have.

That's why we have the House of Represenatives, which gives proportional representation of each state according to the population.

And more imporantly, would you be for this if we've had a Democratic president for the past two elections? Answer honestly please.

It's interesting to read the Founding Father's intent with the Electoral college. The expectation was that rarely would a clear winner come through with a majority of the Electoral votes, so that the stronger two or three candidates would then be elected by Congress (both houses). And if we go with states giving Electoral votes proportionate to the popular election in each state, expect to see more Presidental elections settled in Congress.

I also personally would love to see the Presidential candidate who looses become the Vice President (which was the case until Jefferson I believe) but then again, I prefer a gridlocked governemnt (which is too busy trying to do stuff than actually doing anything) over a non-gridlocked government.

[metaphorge.livejournal.com]

would you be for this if we've had a Democratic president for the past two elections? Answer honestly please.

Yes. I've objected to the electoral college since 1990, and have written several extensive papers as to why in that time frame.

if we go with states giving Electoral votes proportionate to the popular election in each state, expect to see more Presidental elections settled in Congress.

That is not what is being proposed here, btw. (Perhaps you did not mean to infer that it did, but I wanted to state this for the sake of clarity.)

[spc476.livejournal.com]

It was one of the proposals in the article to split the Electoral vote proprtionally according to the popular vote that I was commenting on. Sorry about the apparent left-fieldness of it.

In relation to the article itself, it scares me that it would only take 11 states to determine the President (and I live in one of those states). As much as you feel oppressed (that is, if you do) by states like Wyoming and Nebraska, think how the population of those states would feel having the values of say, New York, imposed on them.


Even if we removed the Electoral College entirely, we could still end up with the fiasco of 2000 where the actual difference between the two candidates is smaller than the margin of error (and just to let you know, I'm more of Jeffersonian in nature, very limited Federal Government with State governments (or evel lower) having more influence).

[gorillashaman.livejournal.com]

Sorry to be the first to tell you, but you don't live in a true democracy.

At best the US governemnt is a Federal Republic (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic ) and at worst it is a Police State (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state ).

[pope-guilty.livejournal.com]

We don't live in anything even resembling a democracy.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I like it too.

It's so slap-your-forehead obvious, after seeing it, that it makes you wonder why no one proposed it before.

[metaphorge.livejournal.com]

Yeah, me too, especially given that the less-populous states would be particularly gung-ho about giving up their electoral edge.

[gorillashaman.livejournal.com]

The US is not now and never has been a "one man one vote" democracy. The creation of the Senate was mandated by the smaller states to avoid the tyranny of the majority.

Whether or not this is good or bad is a subject for debate.

Personally, I don't believe "one man one vote" is workable for any issue that involves more than a few dozen people, and certainly not for any issue which involves 300 million people.

[roadriverrail.livejournal.com]

I don't believe "one man one vote" is workable for any issue that involves more than a few dozen people

Two large neighborhoods in Tampa, FL lost their phone service until my best friend showed up to splice their trunk cables. Why? The five man working crew, sent out to repair something else, took a vote (EACH TIME), on replacing them. I'm not sure that "a few dozen" is the best cutoff point. ;)

[roadriverrail.livejournal.com]

If we're going to claim that the United States is for "one man, one vote" then that should be what happens in practice.

First off, not to be linguistically pedantic, but it is "one man, one vote". Each voter drops one ballot in the box. They get weighted in different ways, but everyone has one ballot and one vote. Nobody makes two votes. Don't try to tell me otherwise, because you know that's true.

My bigger point, though, is that you and many people who comment on this LJ (from time to time, this includes me) project inappropriately when it comes to societal values. We don't claim the United States is for "one man, one vote". You do, and sometimes other people do, too. We, as a collective society, do not, and we have a political structure that reflects it. I realize abolition of the Electoral College is one of your pet fantasies, but your message would be a lot more honest, IMHO, if you spoke for yourself and not for society as a whole.

[metaphorge.livejournal.com]

First, I'd say you are being needlessly linguisticly pedantic. It's a pretty safe bet if one needs to make some disclaimer about not being pedantic that one is, indeed, being pedantic. It's pretty clear what I meant here, and I feel it's intellectually dishonest to pretend that the point is unclear by being overly literal.

Secondly, we're not discussing the "abolition of the electoral college" that you characterize as "fantasy" here; we're talking about a change to the ways that states apportion their electoral votes. I recognize that sparsely populated states are unlikely to ratify a constitutional amendment to get rid of the electoral college that gives their citizens disproportionate say in who is elected President, as does the originator of this proposal.

Thirdly, it's a very arguable point that I'm "projecting inappropriately" here, especially when you turn right around and make a projection of your own that equates the current status quo of government with how "we, as a collective society" "feel", a more contentious point than my orignal use of the word "we".

Nowhere did you address any of the meat of the issue, namely whether this proposal is legally feasible, nor an argument as to why this is a good or bad idea. Why is this? I'm sure you have plenty of justifications for why it's better that the residents of Wyoming receive 3.8 times as many electors as the residents of California, and I'm sure that would yield a much more substantiave discussion than a shallow aesthetic dissection of rhetorical style.

[metaphorge.livejournal.com]

I'm sure you have plenty of justifications for why it's better that the residents of Wyoming receive 3.8 times as many electors as the residents of California

To clarify, this should have "relative to their population" appended to the end of it. I think that's pretty well understood as well, but no need to let the actual topic be obscured by potential pedantic literality here.

[hick0ry.livejournal.com]

The United States was never meant to stand for "one man, one vote" or to be a democracy, for the simple reason that the Founders agreed that the tyranny of the majority is no different from any other tyranny.