Does anyone have any other "better" ideas on how the voting system should work besides the electoral college? Post and explain your reasoning.

Personally I think the electoral college is a good system, but it can and should be modified in a way so that the party that gets the most votes doesn't get all of the representative votes for that state, but rather, each candidate gets a proportion of the representative votes based on the popular vote. for example, say, california was super-close this year (hypothetically of course). say john mccain had 48% of the vote there, barack obama had 51%, and ralph nader had 1%. I don't think it's fair that barack obama gets all 53 or however many votes he gets to the college, but I think Mccain should get about half, Obama should get about half, and Nader should get one or none.

Now, this would of course make the races a lot closer. For a president to win, he needs a majority (over 50%)vote. If there is a tie, the vote goes to the House of Representatives and they are given the power to vote in the next Prez. I dunno about you, but I'm not entirely comfortable with that fact--however, our Founding Fathers designed the Constitution in such a way that the House of Representatives have to represent the people--they are up for election every two years, so they really gotta watch what they do, and they are almost always campaigning. But still, it's unsettling.

Another thing that could happen is that the third party candidates may get a small portion of the vote this way. This might encourage more people to vote for a third party. While this would be awesome, theoretically, if there is enough support for a third party that it is seriously contesting the Republican or Democratic parties, then the president will only need over a 1/3 of the vote to win. This is extremely extremely unlikely, yes. But, how would you like it if your next president was approved by only 1/3 of the nation? This is an argument against the popular vote.

I know that one state, Nebraska, I believe, already follows this modified electoral college process. I remember hearing that John McCain got 3 votes there and Obama got 2. I think that it seems like overall a pretty solid, much more accurate method than what we have now.

I basically agree with what you suggest. I think there should also be something to prevent someone who lost the popular vote from becoming president, as that kind of goes against logic....Or perhaps a constitutional amendment saying that if no one should receive the required 270 electoral votes to be president, the president shall be the one who won the national popular vote. Fuck the House deciding, as that's all partisn bullshit and so will vary according to what party happens to be in power. Supreme Court needs to stay the fuck out of it too. As Bill Clinton said, if it had been Bush trailing by a little bit in Florida in 2000, the Court would've voted 9-0 to continue the recount, as opposed to 5-4 to stop it.

edit: Nebraska and Maine are the only states that reward electoral votes by proportion. Each state would have to decide to do that, either by the voters of the state approving it (I believe Colorado voters struck down the idea in 2004) or the legislatures of 2/3rd of the states approving a Constitutional amendment mandating it. I think the first option is unlikely because then the state will feel as if its importance in the election has gone down. Ohio for instance would go from a 20 electoral vote prize to a "10, maybe 11 or 12 tops" for the winner, and 8, 9, or 10 for the loser.

I basically agree with what you suggest. I think there should also be something to prevent someone who lost the popular vote from becoming president, as that kind of goes against logic....Or perhaps a constitutional amendment saying that if no one should receive the required 270 electoral votes to be president, the president shall be the one who won the national popular vote.

Well if you think voter fraud is bad now....

Well if you think voter fraud is bad now....

Que?

5char

Well guys, you could always just use the popular vote.
"the guy with the most votes wins". If I were designing a system I'd make it instant runoff (so you number preferences, with candidates being eliminated and preferences redistributed until someone has over 50%).

Alternatively if you *really* like the idea of giving small states more representation you could "weight" the popular vote, even simpler -proportionally distribute electoral college votes in each state.

In reality the whole thing is a nightmare though - it's up to states how they assign their electoral college votes, and abolishing the electoral college system in favor of a purely popular vote system would run into opposition on the grounds that it's eroding states rights.
Have fun getting that into the constitution.

The problem with a purely popular vote is that it would encourage more people to vote third party, and if enough people vote third party to contest the other two parties, then the president may be decided by only a 33% "majority." I don't know about you, but if only 1/3 of the country approves of the president, that doesn't seem too efficient or representative.

I personally believe that the electoral college is fucking retarded because a candidate can have the majority of the popular vote, and still lose the presidency.

The problem with a purely popular vote is that it would encourage more people to vote third party, and if enough people vote third party to contest the other two parties, then the president may be decided by only a 33% "majority." I don't know about you, but if only 1/3 of the country approves of the president, that doesn't seem too efficient or representative.

Which isn't a problem if you use instant runoff voting instead of first past the post.

Which isn't a problem if you use instant runoff voting instead of first past the post.

This, or preferential voting.

Which isn't a problem if you use instant runoff voting instead of first past the post.

But then you're still just narrowing down the field and getting rid of candidates that a large portion of Americans support, so they can make a lesser of two evils choice like always. How is that really any different than the primary system in place now? You'd just force off what 3rd party candidates actually do get on the ballot and garner 1-2% total of the vote amongst themselves, so one guy could get at least 50.1% and be declared teh winnar.

Well guys, you could always just use the popular vote.
"the guy with the most votes wins". If I were designing a system I'd make it instant runoff (so you number preferences, with candidates being eliminated and preferences redistributed until someone has over 50%).



How would you then represent the view of the people on new issues which crop up within a term? Just "trust" the government to handle them?

first off, we need the citizens to be able to make national initiatives. then we would ACTUALLY have real power. check it out: www.ni4d.us

then maybe a preferential voting system. or maybe just decentralize the power, except for a military commander in chief.

there's some phenomenon where the more people there are, the more likely the answer they come up will be the correct answer, i really wonder if that would work for non-secret decision making....

edit: it's collective intelligence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Collective_intelligence

This, or preferential voting.

Same thing.

But then you're still just narrowing down the field and getting rid of candidates that a large portion of Americans support, so they can make a lesser of two evils choice like always. How is that really any different than the primary system in place now? You'd just force off what 3rd party candidates actually do get on the ballot and garner 1-2% total of the vote amongst themselves, so one guy could get at least 50.1% and be declared teh winnar.

Lack of wasted vote issues means 3rd party candidates stand a far more significant chance.
Think of how many people who would otherwise vote libertarian vote (maybe) republican as the lesser of two evils, or greens voting democrat, you can't assume current voting pattens hold from sheer inertia.

First past the post punishes political forces that don't form 'coalitions' pretty damn harshly - look at Canada.
While it's a 'multiparty' system, the NDP can cause the Liberals to lose seats to the conservatives even when NDP supporters would probably prefer liberals to conservatives - if (as an example), an electorate votes:
40% Conservative
35% Liberal
25% New Democratic Party
and we assume ALL of the NDP supporters would prefer liberals, and for the sake of being extreme, that all the liberals would prefer NDP to conservatives.

In first past the post, conservatives win despite being the least favored by 60% of the voters.

This is why people vote tactically - Nader in Florida in 2000 being the ultimate example of course.
(in Canada it's a little more complex since the Libs are legitimately centrist and not really a left wing party, so presumably tactical voting just doesn't seem worth it to NDP supporters - given how many people voted for Nader in 2004 or 2008, it seems that Americans on the other hand can learn to vote tactically VERY quickly)

Under a preferential system, the NDP is eliminated and its votes redistributed according to preferences(which for the sake of convenience is all to liberals)
Final two party preferred result is
60% Liberal
40% Conservative


This applies to congress a lot more clearly then it does to the whitehouse of course, since it's difficult to really apply any preferential system given the electoral college.

How would you then represent the view of the people on new issues which crop up within a term? Just "trust" the government to handle them?

A legitimate sentiment, but a little bit beyond the scope of the thread. :p

I'm not certain that Athenian democracy is applicable in modern times either.

first off, we need the citizens to be able to make national initiatives. then we would ACTUALLY have real power. check it out: www.ni4d.us

This seems to be an excellent idea, except how well would this work? Bills already have a tough time becoming laws as they're being argued over and thrown back and forth between the House and the Senate. Adding a third branch, "the people", would seem to make things a whole lot messier. Plus, you should take into consideration that it is necessary in a democracy to have accurate, free-flowing channels of researched information. When the national media focuses on John McCain's number of houses or Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter or Barack Obama's "friends" and the voters know little to nothing about these candidates' economic plans, their views on education, foreign affairs, etc. you have to ask yourself, "Do we really want to give power to a misinformed, easily swayed public? Most totseans will acknowledge that many Americans are comparative to sheep, and use the (rather stupid) term "sheeple." If Americans are unquestioningly blind and apathetic, why do we want to give them power on what to vote for? Just look at Proposition 8 in California. Voters decided on a terrible law that forbids gays the "unalienable rights" provided to them by our Constitution. How do you defend this act?

The Electoral College doesn't make sense because the Electoral College makes it possible for the Candidate who wins the majority of the votes to lose.

It causes me confusion, and I'd love it if somebody could explain why it's useful.