Since this was a semi-hot topic on the boards recently, thought some of you would be interested in this article.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/state/colorado/2004-08-16-colo-electoral_x.htm

(snip)
<i>If passed, Amendment 36 would make Colorado the first state to allocate electoral votes proportionately according to the popular vote, rather than giving a winner all of the state's electoral votes.
...
Only two other states do not have winner-take-all systems of casting electoral college votes. Nebraska and Maine give two votes to the winner of each state, and remaining votes are cast to show who won each congressional district.

Republican Gov. Bill Owens and Republican State Party Chairman Ted Halaby have criticized the Colorado proposal, saying it would lessen the state's clout in presidential elections. They warn that candidates will ignore the state and its nine electoral votes if the measure passes.
</i>

Somewhat related, if other political parties had names like these, I'd probably be more interested:
<i>Katy Atkinson, a spokeswoman for the opposing <b>Coloradans Against a Really Stupid Idea</b>, promised to challenge the measure if it passes and it is applied in this year's presidential race. </i>

Ah! Very interesting. I think if such a thing were passed it'd make presidential candidates work harder in that state. As it is now, only the states that are weakly going for one candidate or divided, are the ones that get campaign attention. But then again, do I really care if Kerry or Bush come to CA? Naw.

I like the name of that group too. :)

I think that proportional representation is a good thing, but it has its pitfalls.

Both a strength and a weakness of American politics is the predominance of two political parties.

The strength is that there is a clear winner. "Minority" government has no real meaning in the U.S. In many other other democratic countries the winning party has a plurality but not necessarily a majority of the votes. They are forced to form alliances, or face defeat because opposition votes outnumber them. This is currently the case in Canada. Uncertainty in government is not a good thing, and this is a benefit of a two-party system.

The weakness is that there is a limited choice. With only two viable alternatives, some voters become disenchanted. They are faced with abstaining, throwing away their vote on a party with marginal support or holding their noses and voting for the least objectionable choice.

Another weakness in the American system is that the president's political party may not have the majority in the house or the senate. In many democratic societies, the leader of the country is the leader of the party with the most seats.

There is no fundamental reason why the U.S. can't have more than two major parties, but attempts at third parties have proven basically fruitless.

Proportional representation, such as proposed for Colorado, makes it easier for other parties to get a foothold... perhaps not anytime soon, but it certainly can happen.

Proportional representation works reasonably well in Germany. It works less well in Italy where they frequently change political leadership. Of course there is always the joke that goes... "If you put ten Frenchmen in a room, they will form eleven political parties." :grin:

One aspect of proportional representation used in some countries (e.g. Germany) is that a small party must reach a minimum vote threshold to be allowed a place in government. For example, the Green Party in Germany was historically below the threshold (I think it's 5% of votes) to be represented. Once they exceeded the threshold, they became a viable political force.

Thicket

Another weakness in the American system is that the president's political party may not have the majority in the house or the senate. In many democratic societies, the leader of the country is the leader of the party with the most seats.


A lot of people view that as a good thing.

Aye... that's true Panamah. It can lead to conflicts and power plays, but it can also lead to accountability and sober second thought.

Similarly, there are people that view 'minority' governments in democracies as a good thing. It keeps the government on their toes and accountable because the government can fall quickly. I don't happen to agree.

There is another strength in American politics, imo. The fixed term of office promotes stability. Most democratic countries have variable terms. Governments can change for a variety of reasons including being voted out because they are in the minority, or the party in power can voluntarily call a snap early election.

I'm reminded of another line I learned in high school history... "Democracy is the worst political system in the world, except for all the other ones."

Thicket

Actually, it leads to gridlock and inability to pass stupid new laws. Or at least, the opposing sides actually have to move into the middle a bit to get things done. If you've got a solid majority in control, then they can get too extreme with their agendas and pass laws or do things that are too far to the right or left. I think most people are probably middle-of-the-road with most of their opinions but the people we end up electing are not. Gridlock forces them to come a little closer to what we really wish they'd be.

Term limits? Or fixed terms? Like presidents have only 4 years? Or they have only a maximum of two terms?

I'm kind of mixed on term limits. I think new politicians probably use at least their first term just getting up to speed, learning the ropes and such. To boot them out after 2 terms you have to start over with another noob. Then you also have them currying favors with big corporations so they can get a cushy job after their terms are up.

The one reason I am against term limits: right now, a politician is accountable to the public via the next election. If they don't measure up, they don't get their jobs back.

If we go with term limits, in their last term, the politician has no one to be accountable to. Witness many of the things 2-term presidents do in their second term when they know they don't have to worry about re-election (on both sides of the fence, not just the republicans or the dems).

Ah! Very interesting. I think if such a thing were passed it'd make presidential candidates work harder in that state. As it is now, only the states that are weakly going for one candidate or divided, are the ones that get campaign attention. But then again, do I really care if Kerry or Bush come to CA? Naw.

I like the name of that group too. :)

If it passed on Colorado, then candidates would totally ignore the state because it will only be worth one vote, and that is only if the state can be swayed over the percentage where one more vote would be won (45%, 50%, 56%). If it were clearly going to fall between those percentages, then your campaigning would likely get you nothing. Your time would be better spent in states worth more like Alaska or Hawaii. But, in the end it is up to each state to decide how they cast their electorial votes. If the people of the state wish to split the vote, then more power to them.

If it passed on Colorado, then candidates would totally ignore the state

It depends if it is currently a swing state or not. If the state has been staunchly voting for the same party for the last 50 years then it will actually increase the opportunities and interest for other parties in that state.

If it passed on Colorado, then candidates would totally ignore the state because it will only be worth one vote, and that is only if the state can be swayed over the percentage where one more vote would be won (45%, 50%, 56%). If it were clearly going to fall between those percentages, then your campaigning would likely get you nothing. Your time would be better spent in states worth more like Alaska or Hawaii. But, in the end it is up to each state to decide how they cast their electorial votes. If the people of the state wish to split the vote, then more power to them.

If you said this to my face I'd have to say, "What?" 9 votes are going somewhere, 8 of them aren't just evaporating.

From reading the recent articles on this, it looks like people on both sides are against it soley because its a change.

If New Mexico had this, a candidate would actually have to visit more than just Albequerque to get all 5 votes from here. They'd actually have to like, go talk to those people in the second biggest city, Las Cruces and they couldn't simply ignore the eastern side of the state as they do now. Yes, to me, it means more work for those who wish us to give them the temporary power to run the country.

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking too, Bap. I don't follow Talyena's reasoning. Every other state is a switch, it's either off or on for a candidate. Colorado would be a knob. You might end up with 3 votes from Colorado but the other guy gets 6, still it might be enough to win the election. Every other state, you need the majority to get any votes.

Her reasoning is simple. Assuming that, like most states, the final result in the 55%/45% to 45% to 55% range, then a straight split will result in 5/4 or 4/5 in electoral votes. Candidates who expect to get 45% just as a matter of course spend money to get to 51% in order to grab all the electoral votes for a state. In Colorado, what does that same expenditure get them? 5 electoral votes instead of 4. Hence, the candidate has only gotten one more electoral vote than they would have had.

Currently, the candidate that goes from 45% to 51% gets 9 additional electoral votes instead of 0. Thus, the candidate gets 9 more electoral votes than they would have had.

Ah, that's true. Thanks for illustrating that.

I have mixed thoughts about having a district by district electorial college. Redistricting will become the fighting point. You know, get 51% voting XXX party in that district... or just a simple majority.

I like the two party system for stablity but the "feeling" that YOUR vote counts does not exist. Two parties make the decisions that are needed but issues like overspending do not seem to get resolved...

Having only two parties is pretty limiting in your options. Hell we had 5 viable ones in Canada last election and still it was a choice among evils. Minority governments do make for interesting times, though, and sometimes good legislation can happen that could *only* happen in that situation.

Anyway, proportional representation is really the only fair way to go. Anyone who argues otherwise is just peeved that in whatever specific case it damages their cause by letting the people have a greater voice in their governance. Who cares if the state goes from 9/0 electoral votes to 5/4. If 45% of the people voted for the other guy, why on earth should their vote be completely ignored? There's no argument you can make to support that which doesnt fly in the face of what democracy is supposed to be.

Hmmm... I'm not sure electoral votes would be divided by district. Districts are for senators and congressmen and the like. They're your reps in the government. I would imagine that dividing up electoral votes would be done by the state total and districts would have no play in it. Otherwise it would just be an exercise in gerrymandering.

At one time the electoral college made a whole lot of sense and it was a good idea at the time. But after a couple of hundred years things have changed and the issues that made the electoral college a really good idea back then aren't problems any longer.

It's still mostly ok, but if elections are going to be as close as the one in 2000 regularly then it might be a good idea to revamp the system. Something tells me 2004 election is going to be a squeaker too.

The odds of that are very slim without a near total uprising. After all, thems that make the rules are benefiting from the way it is now. To change it, they would have to essentially cut their own throats.

(Anti-grammatical use of the non-word, "thems" is intentional.)

I have a question,

What will be the minimum % of elector that a president can have and win the election.

When he win a state, he have 51% of the votes.
When he lose he have 0% of the votes.

Eridalafar

Her reasoning is simple. Assuming that, like most states, the final result in the 55%/45% to 45% to 55% range, then a straight split will result in 5/4 or 4/5 in electoral votes.

Actually, the popular vote can still go to the loser with any electorial system. Example:

Take 3 states and each has 9 electorial votes and lets say that each vote represents 1 million people. I know that each vote represents less but this is for example purposes.

state 1: Kerry wins 4 electorial votes and Bush wins 5
Kerry recieves 4,490,000 votes and Bush recieves 4,510,000

state 2: Kerry wins 4 electorial votes and Bush wins 5
Kerry recieves 4,490,000 votes and Bush recieves 4,510,000

state 3: Kerry wins 5 electorial votes and Bush wins 4
Kerry recieves 5,000,000 votes and Bush recieves 4,000,000

Total: Kerry 13,980,000 votes and Bush recieves 13,020,000
Total Kerry 13 electorial votes and Bush 14 votes

To get the result that the Dems are fishing for, the voting system would have to get changed to a popular vote and that removes the original intent of the representative system. That is a state has certain needs that require different representation other states. New York has different needs than Montana. Removing the representation from the states reduces the importance of the States inexchange for having a popular vote to elect the president.

Now, my understanding of the representative system points back to the Roman senate. The original senate had a representative to represent each family/district in Rome. This representative spoke for the needs of the family and that district. That is my understanding why the US has representatives. Governmental needs on the local level get addressed at the local level and the problem gets pushed up the governmental chain until a representative that is responsible for the area can solve the issue.

Given a state that tends to vote for one party solidly, winner-takes-all has the support of the majority party, because this allows them to give more votes to their federal friends.

Given a swing state, winner-takes-all means each vote in the state has more value, and hence more likely to be woo'd with promises of federal money during elections.

In both cases, it is in those who control the state government's best interest to go winner-take-all.

This isn't nessicarially in the best interest of the nation as a whole.

Yes, the non-popular vote can win an election, but its extremely rare. Has only happened twice.... I think. We had this conversation in another thread through a couple of weeks ago. I posted a link about the pros and cons of the electoral college.

I have a question,

What will be the minimum % of elector that a president can have and win the election.

When he win a state, he have 51% of the votes.
When he lose he have 0% of the votes.

Eridalafar

I'm not sure I'm understanding your question Eridalafar, but I'll try to explain:

In most states, the popular voting takes place. Whichever candidate wins (50+ %) the popular vote will receive 100% of the electoral college votes. So it's kind of a two step system.

First the popular vote decides which person gets the electoral college votes, then the electoral college people submit their votes, which is how the next president is determined.