So now I don't get a vote?

[Alex]

As the article states, the concern is not small state rights or equal voter rights, but simply that presidential campaigns aren't spending enough money in Maryland. I don't think this will fix that but the quoted supporter does. Tramspotter: As long as it happens democratically, this is very much the federalism reserved to states by the constitution. There is no end run. The constitution specifically allows individual states to determine on their own how to assign electors. If they wanted, they could theoretically give that power solely to the governor. They could engage in a roshambo contest among the major candidates. They could put every candidates picture on a mat and give the electors to the candidate first shat upon by a chicken.

Originally Posted by The Flaming Hippies of the 1790s

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress

Some state have passed laws outlawing feckless electors but the constitutionality of such has never been tested in the courts. Since electors are almost always party faithful it means the end of a political career to vote wildly wrong.

[Morrigoon]

A nationwide popular vote seems like a good idea, but it puts a strong bias on metropolitan politics and leaves the rural folks in the dust. The city centers have the population to swing things their way, and their priorities often differ from those of the rural people (who, for one thing, grow our food).

Twisted though it seems... a regionally-assigned electoral vote gives those people a voice who might otherwise be completely ignored. Yes, it technically gives them more power per person, but our system was designed to make sure that the minority at least has a chance to be heard.

(To be fair though... I'm playing devil's advocate here, because it does seem like we don't need the electoral college with today's technology. And I don't think it's fair for some states to "round up" and give ALL their votes to the one candidate that won the most over the whole state rather than giving each vote according to how many votes it got within its own jurisdiction. Or at least assign by percentage share of total votes and then round up or down based on majority for the one elector who represents the split between the two.

[innerSpaceman]

But the mid-size states have ended up holding both the bigger and little states hostage. No campaign bothers to address the concerns of anything but "swing state" voters. Not that I want a barage of TV ads in California ... but just because California is, on the electoral college whole, a done deal for the Democrats, that's no reason (in my impartial opinion) to ignore the vast number of Republican voters in this huge, pluralistic state.

[Morrigoon]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

Tramspotter: As long as it happens democratically, this is very much the federalism reserved to states by the constitution. There is no end run. The constitution specifically allows individual states to determine on their own how to assign electors. If they wanted, they could theoretically give that power solely to the governor. They could engage in a roshambo contest among the major candidates. They could put every candidates picture on a mat and give the electors to the candidate first shat upon by a chicken.

Only on LoT could a conversation about the electoral college contain a reference to chicken poop... and make perfect sense.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

(To be fair though... I'm playing devil's advocate here, because it does seem like we don't need the electoral college with today's technology.

I'm not sure what technology would have to do with it. I think it was on this message board (but I'm not going to look for it) that I went into detail on why I think the electoral college is important, why I think 100 years of static Congressional apportionment has knocked it out of whack, and how I'd reform it to bring it back in line.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Well, one could certainly argue that the quantum leaps in communication technology since the establishment of the Electoral College has mitigated to some degree the inability of smaller electorates to be heard or catered to. How much so and what it means for the efficacy and necessity of the college is of course debatable, but I definitely see it as a valid consideration in the debate.

[Alex]

At least for me, the importance of the electoral college is not one of communication or ability to be heard. It is that there are issues of geography that should carry some weight regardless of population.

[Jazzman]

I've always been a big opponent of the Electoral College. It worked great 200 years ago when counting a popular vote was technologically unfeasible. But today, that's simply not the case. Counting the popular vote nationwide is already being done, as the last two elections made painfully clear. But those popular tallies just don't mean anything more than a soundbite on the news coverage now. And I really don't worry about large metro areas swinging things, because to try and skew more power to rural voters to compensate is essentially saying that rural voters are more important because their votes would then count disproportionately in their ability to affect the outcome of the election. Suppose that the entire heartland wants Candidate A, but every metro area wants Candidate B and the final popular tally is for B because the cities hold more people. Wouldn’t it be a little undemocratic to elect A because voting power was skewed to the heartland to “make things equal?” Every individual vote equal is what I feel needs to happen, and that can only happen with a popular vote.

As far as Maryland and their idea, I think it’s noble, but somewhat akin to a Rube Goldberg device for solving a problem. If they really want to press the issue, then their representatives need to start pushing it vocally in DC and get others on the bandwagon. The American public loves a good cause du jour, and I have no doubt that the Electoral College could be made one. It just needs the proper attention.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

At least for me, the importance of the electoral college is not one of communication or ability to be heard. It is that there are issues of geography that should carry some weight regardless of population.

But why? Why should geography play any part in our representative democracy? Going under the assumption that no one is isolated any longer from communication, why do rural Americans need more voting weight than urban Americans?


(Which Jazzman expressed more eloquently while I was posting.)

[Prudence]

Because it's the states electing a leader, and not a general population?