Electoral Reform

[Del Tachi]

Discuss

[Derek]

Wasn't an issue recently until the democrats didn't get their way. After running to the courts and losing their they've been in favor of changing the rules. The Electoral College is the American way so therefore anything else is unAmerican.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Seems to me that if someone ever chose to bring a case, the current system of winner-take-all system of choosing Electors would be held to violate the same Constitutional principles that led to the one-man one-vote cases making wholesale changes in how State legislatures were elected during the 1960's.  Not that single-member districts for the Electoral College would inevitably result, but they would be the most likely result.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

None, but I could live with the Maine/Nebraska system.

[Bo]

Wasn't an issue recently until the democrats didn't get their way. After running to the courts and losing their they've been in favor of changing the rules. The Electoral College is the American way so therefore anything else is unAmerican.

Actually, a majority of Americans supported abolishing the EC since the 1940s, I believe.

As for the question, no changes. The EC allows candidates to have a diverse geographical range of support, and thus prevents a candidate who does extraordinary well in one area (such as Cleveland in the South in 1888) and wins the PV as a result from winning the election if he doesn't have a broad enough geographic range of support.

[opebo]

Proportional representation, parliamentary system, European style.  Also no Senate and a Bill of Economic Rights...

[Antonio the Sixth]

Proportional representation, parliamentary system, European style.  Also no Senate and a Bill of Economic Rights...

This ideally. But realistically, option 2.

[Frink]

Ideally some kind of Proportional Representation or Instant Runoff Voting would be preferable, although I would like to keep the direct election of the President.

[Franzl]

Proportional representation, parliamentary system, European style.  Also no Senate and a Bill of Economic Rights...

This ideally. But realistically, option 2.

I would strongly oppose any switch to a parliamentary system...or any type of party list PR.

I do favor a national popular vote though.

[You kip if you want to...]

Proportional representation (Additional Member) for the House. AV for the Senate.

Elect the president through run-offs, like the French.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Abolish the presidency.

[Phony Moderate]

Elections should be abolished, and Ron Paul should be made the Grand Dictator of the USA.

[memphis]

Wasn't an issue recently until the democrats didn't get their way. After running to the courts and losing their they've been in favor of changing the rules. The Electoral College is the American way so therefore anything else is unAmerican.

Actually, a majority of Americans supported abolishing the EC since the 1940s, I believe.

As for the question, no changes. The EC allows candidates to have a diverse geographical range of support, and thus prevents a candidate who does extraordinary well in one area (such as Cleveland in the South in 1888) and wins the PV as a result from winning the election if he doesn't have a broad enough geographic range of support.

Cleveland was popular throughout the country. He just had the misfortune of very narrowly losing a number of key Northern states (NY,IL,OH). This is, in fact, another drawback to the EC system. Elections are frequently decided by a very few voters in just a few states.

[Bo]

Wasn't an issue recently until the democrats didn't get their way. After running to the courts and losing their they've been in favor of changing the rules. The Electoral College is the American way so therefore anything else is unAmerican.

Actually, a majority of Americans supported abolishing the EC since the 1940s, I believe.

As for the question, no changes. The EC allows candidates to have a diverse geographical range of support, and thus prevents a candidate who does extraordinary well in one area (such as Cleveland in the South in 1888) and wins the PV as a result from winning the election if he doesn't have a broad enough geographic range of support.

Cleveland was popular throughout the country. He just had the misfortune of very narrowly losing a number of key Northern states (NY,IL,OH). This is, in fact, another drawback to the EC system. Elections are frequently decided by a very few voters in just a few states.

Still, Cleveland won several Southern states with 60+% of the vote. Harrison only won VT by 60+%. Thus, Cleveland won the PV primarily due to the fact that he did overwhelmingly well in one single area of the U.S.

[Хahar 🤔]

Wasn't an issue recently until the democrats didn't get their way. After running to the courts and losing their they've been in favor of changing the rules. The Electoral College is the American way so therefore anything else is unAmerican.

Actually, a majority of Americans supported abolishing the EC since the 1940s, I believe.

As for the question, no changes. The EC allows candidates to have a diverse geographical range of support, and thus prevents a candidate who does extraordinary well in one area (such as Cleveland in the South in 1888) and wins the PV as a result from winning the election if he doesn't have a broad enough geographic range of support.

Cleveland was popular throughout the country. He just had the misfortune of very narrowly losing a number of key Northern states (NY,IL,OH). This is, in fact, another drawback to the EC system. Elections are frequently decided by a very few voters in just a few states.

Still, Cleveland won several Southern states with 60+% of the vote. Harrison only won VT by 60+%. Thus, Cleveland won the PV primarily due to the fact that he did overwhelmingly well in one single area of the U.S.

Non sequitur.

[Barnes]

Proportional representation, parliamentary system, European style.  Also no Senate and a Bill of Economic Rights...

I'd support this. Although I could stand keeping the Senate, as long as the Filibuster was eliminated.

But, of course, the most realistic option in the National Popular Vote.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If you must have a powerful President, then there's no sane reason to have the President elected by anything other than a nationwide poll. A runoff provision makes sense in theory, but the reality of the American 'party' system means that it wouldn't really be needed.

More generally, I've become increasingly convinced that the main issue wrt electoral reform is compulsory voting; everything else isn't all that far from window dressing.

[Progressive]

It's exciting to watch state-by-state returns on election nights, but the truth is in my opinion the only fair election is that of a popular vote.

[Derek]

No need for it. The 2000 election is just proof that the electoral college is possibly the greatest invention in the history of our country. In 2012, I hope the GOP candidate wins without the popular vote as well.

[doktorb]

The current system, to this Brit at least, is utter bonkers. It makes FPTP look democratic (which is clearly isn't).

A national vote, without converting to points or scores or votes, with a run-off for less than 50%. It would certainly bring interest to those States seen as "sure fire" bankers for either party, would challenge both main parties to make the election a genuinely nationwide event, and have democratic validity.

[Mercenary]

My ideal isn't realistic or even remotely popular but I'll list it any way.

I'd basically take the EV and just alter it so that states would have a slightly more even electoral vote. I like the idea behind how the senate functions in that each state has an equal say instead of everything being controlled by California or Texas. So I'd like to take it more in the direction of closer to an equal say. I'd still keep some amount from population, but I'd shift more in the other direction. I like more decentralized government, more done at the local level, and I like power spread out, so I prefer the power being spread out instead of dominated in a few majorly populated states. I prefer the same idea for state government too though. Of course this means less say per capita in urban areas than in rural areas, so no one likes it.

[Franzl]

My ideal isn't realistic or even remotely popular but I'll list it any way.

I'd basically take the EV and just alter it so that states would have a slightly more even electoral vote. I like the idea behind how the senate functions in that each state has an equal say instead of everything being controlled by California or Texas. So I'd like to take it more in the direction of closer to an equal say. I'd still keep some amount from population, but I'd shift more in the other direction. I like more decentralized government, more done at the local level, and I like power spread out, so I prefer the power being spread out instead of dominated in a few majorly populated states. I prefer the same idea for state government too though. Of course this means less say per capita in urban areas than in rural areas, so no one likes it.

Why do you hate people in urban areas?

[Lief 🗽]

Huh, I agree with Libertas on something, as far as abolishing the presidency goes. My perfect (democratic republican) system would be a unicameral legislature of some number of single-member constituencies, elected by IRV/AV.

But if we must keep the presidency, the electoral college absolutely has to stay, or else election coverage would be much less exciting.

[Mercenary]

My ideal isn't realistic or even remotely popular but I'll list it any way.

I'd basically take the EV and just alter it so that states would have a slightly more even electoral vote. I like the idea behind how the senate functions in that each state has an equal say instead of everything being controlled by California or Texas. So I'd like to take it more in the direction of closer to an equal say. I'd still keep some amount from population, but I'd shift more in the other direction. I like more decentralized government, more done at the local level, and I like power spread out, so I prefer the power being spread out instead of dominated in a few majorly populated states. I prefer the same idea for state government too though. Of course this means less say per capita in urban areas than in rural areas, so no one likes it.

Why do you hate people in urban areas?

I don't hate people in urban areas. I just don't agree with representation based on population density, I prefer it based on geographical area for the most part. I like states to have a more equal say regardless of population.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Why? Fields don't vote.