Revising the Electoral College

[Jayjay]

Why do you need to know more about the candidate electors though? Their only job is to vote for the president. If you've already made up your mind about who you want to be the president, all you need to know about the elector is who he will vote for. If you haven't, the job of figuring out which elector would be best suited to make that decision for you, is just as complicated (if not more complicated) as figuring out which of the actual presidential candidates is best.

True, very true. An informed voter can easily choose the elector that will choose the president they want.

The key point though is in one word - informed.

I think my proposal might have interesting ramifications on the rest of the electorate.

But the thing that you need to be "informed" about in this system is completely artificial. It's a factoid created for the sole purpose of the election: that elector X will vote for candidate Y. It doesn't measure at all how informed the person is about politics, society, current events or anything else of actual importance.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

CDP or CDC is aesthetically pleasing but would require a Constitutional amendment specifying an algorithm for districting. Otherwise you just introduce gerrymandering into Presidential elections.

Yup, they are unacceptable until we solve gerrymandering.

 

[Jayjay]

How about if states were to adopt national popular vote without an interstate pact? That is, just do it on a state-by-state basis regardless of what other states do. That would do away with the congressional approval requirement.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I had a suggestion - instead of voting for president, you vote for an elector based on his promise of who he will vote for, but his party affiliation isn't included on the ballot.

That is the beginning and end of my suggestion. It has nothing to do with your attempted derail. You might as well also ask lpetrich the exact same question, since he brought up the idea of alternative methods for allocating electors, but you didn't do that.

Comment on the idea or shut up and leave me alone. Take your derail and [censored].

In the past I've suggested taking this much further:

Abolish elections. Instead, use a direct democracy with proxy voting. Your "ballot" for any given office consists of a "do you wish to serve?" and the name of someone or some organization that gets your vote, and one or more alternates.

If you do not wish to serve your vote is automatically passed to whomever you designated. Note that those who are ineligible (for example, organizations) must pass their vote. It's handled rather like instant runoff voting. Keep culling the bottom of the list and passing the votes up until you have reduced the number of people on the list to the number of seats you are trying to fill. (So, locally we would cull the senate list to two people, the house list to four.) Note that just because you passed your vote on doesn't mean you can't get votes passed to you--they get passed wherever your votes get passed. The people who are seated by this process are voting all the proxies they have.

If a situation arises where votes are getting passed in a loop the votes are given to the entity in the loop that receives the most votes not counting the loop. If this results in votes that would vanish because they have no place to go and they're not enough to get a seat they are then passed to the first alternate they named. If they didn't, walk around the loop looking for an alternate. Votes are only truly lost if they dead-end (votes were passed to someone who didn't pass them and doesn't get enough to serve) or get stuck in a loop without alternates--and the potential for both situations can be evaluated when you set your proxy. The intent is that all the votes make up a great tree (with cross connections), any attempt to select a proxy that will result in a disconnected branch gets a warning about the problem.

You can change your proxies anytime (and the voting power updates from that say once a month) and the actual people seated can change say on a 6 month basis.

 

[Jayjay]

I had a suggestion - instead of voting for president, you vote for an elector based on his promise of who he will vote for, but his party affiliation isn't included on the ballot.

That is the beginning and end of my suggestion. It has nothing to do with your attempted derail. You might as well also ask lpetrich the exact same question, since he brought up the idea of alternative methods for allocating electors, but you didn't do that.

Comment on the idea or shut up and leave me alone. Take your derail and [censored].

In the past I've suggested taking this much further:

Abolish elections. Instead, use a direct democracy with proxy voting. Your "ballot" for any given office consists of a "do you wish to serve?" and the name of someone or some organization that gets your vote, and one or more alternates.

If you do not wish to serve your vote is automatically passed to whomever you designated. Note that those who are ineligible (for example, organizations) must pass their vote. It's handled rather like instant runoff voting. Keep culling the bottom of the list and passing the votes up until you have reduced the number of people on the list to the number of seats you are trying to fill. (So, locally we would cull the senate list to two people, the house list to four.) Note that just because you passed your vote on doesn't mean you can't get votes passed to you--they get passed wherever your votes get passed. The people who are seated by this process are voting all the proxies they have.

If a situation arises where votes are getting passed in a loop the votes are given to the entity in the loop that receives the most votes not counting the loop. If this results in votes that would vanish because they have no place to go and they're not enough to get a seat they are then passed to the first alternate they named. If they didn't, walk around the loop looking for an alternate. Votes are only truly lost if they dead-end (votes were passed to someone who didn't pass them and doesn't get enough to serve) or get stuck in a loop without alternates--and the potential for both situations can be evaluated when you set your proxy. The intent is that all the votes make up a great tree (with cross connections), any attempt to select a proxy that will result in a disconnected branch gets a warning about the problem.

You can change your proxies anytime (and the voting power updates from that say once a month) and the actual people seated can change say on a 6 month basis.

I think that's unnecessarily complex. The real power lies with the people who write the proposals and decide what is put on for a vote anyway.

Personally I think the Swiss method of referendums is a better way of implementing direct democracy. The parliaments vote for laws as usual, but there is a 100 day period during which, if enough signatures are gathered, any law can be put on a referendum. This means the representatives can't pass laws that the people don't like, which limits the power of politicians considerably.

 

[Elixir]

I had a suggestion - instead of voting for president, you vote for an elector based on his promise of who he will vote for, but his party affiliation isn't included on the ballot.

That's fabulous idea, Jason. Best idea ever.
How do you draw the districts? Without an answer to that question, your most excellent, incredibly awesome idea is just a detached fantasy on the same order as "Have a consortium of Christian, Islamic, and Hindu Gods appoint the President" .

BTW it would be far simpler and mor effective to require, State by State, that electors are chosen in accord with the national popular vote.
That would make it a lot hard for Putin to rig like in 2016... so Rethuglicans will never go for it.

 

[Trausti]

I had a suggestion - instead of voting for president, you vote for an elector based on his promise of who he will vote for, but his party affiliation isn't included on the ballot.

That's fabulous idea, Jason. Best idea ever.
How do you draw the districts? Without an answer to that question, your most excellent, incredibly awesome idea is just a detached fantasy on the same order as "Have a consortium of Christian, Islamic, and Hindu Gods appoint the President" .

BTW it would be far simpler and mor effective to require, State by State, that electors are chosen in accord with the national popular vote.
That would make it a lot hard for Putin to rig like in 2016... so Rethuglicans will never go for it.

What incentive would the smaller states have to essentially abolish the electoral college and make their own citizens’ votes irrelevant?

 

[cycomiko]

I had a suggestion - instead of voting for president, you vote for an elector based on his promise of who he will vote for, but his party affiliation isn't included on the ballot.

That's fabulous idea, Jason. Best idea ever.
How do you draw the districts? Without an answer to that question, your most excellent, incredibly awesome idea is just a detached fantasy on the same order as "Have a consortium of Christian, Islamic, and Hindu Gods appoint the President" .

BTW it would be far simpler and mor effective to require, State by State, that electors are chosen in accord with the national popular vote.
That would make it a lot hard for Putin to rig like in 2016... so Rethuglicans will never go for it.

What incentive would the smaller states have to essentially abolish the electoral college and make their own citizens’ votes irrelevant?

Right now a conservative in Washington has an irrelevant vote just like a liberal in Arkansas. Get rid of the EC and now everyone's vote counts the same. If there's more liberals than conservatives why should the conservatives get to rule over everyone?

 

[Trausti]

What incentive would the smaller states have to essentially abolish the electoral college and make their own citizens’ votes irrelevant?

Right now a conservative in Washington has an irrelevant vote just like a liberal in Arkansas. Get rid of the EC and now everyone's vote counts the same. If there's more liberals than conservatives why should the conservatives get to rule over everyone?

Because it's the United States. The states existed before the federal government. The state's retention of sovereignty is a bedrock of our federal system.

 

[TomC]

I had a suggestion - instead of voting for president, you vote for an elector based on his promise of who he will vote for, but his party affiliation isn't included on the ballot.

That's fabulous idea, Jason. Best idea ever.
How do you draw the districts? Without an answer to that question, your most excellent, incredibly awesome idea is just a detached fantasy on the same order as "Have a consortium of Christian, Islamic, and Hindu Gods appoint the President" .

BTW it would be far simpler and mor effective to require, State by State, that electors are chosen in accord with the national popular vote.
That would make it a lot hard for Putin to rig like in 2016... so Rethuglicans will never go for it.

What incentive would the smaller states have to essentially abolish the electoral college and make their own citizens’ votes irrelevant?

The belief that democracy is better for everyone than an oligarchy based on 18th century elitists?
That the American people choosing the President is better than the partisans in state legislatures choosing a president for them, even when The People vote clearly and loudly against the partisan politician's choice?

How about that?
Tom

 

[cycomiko]

What incentive would the smaller states have to essentially abolish the electoral college and make their own citizens’ votes irrelevant?

Right now a conservative in Washington has an irrelevant vote just like a liberal in Arkansas. Get rid of the EC and now everyone's vote counts the same. If there's more liberals than conservatives why should the conservatives get to rule over everyone?

Because it's the United States. The states existed before the federal government. The state's retention of sovereignty is a bedrock of our federal system.

So each state gets to determine how it governs within its borders and each state picks who it sends as representatives to that federal government. National elections should be chosen by the nation as a whole and each vote should be weighted equally.

I do realize it's the system we have so I'm not arguing with the fact that each states gets to determine it's electors as it wishes. I just don't think it's the best system for the year 2020 where most of the country is literate and has ready access to information. We'll just stick with minority rule until we can fix it.

 

[Trausti]

What incentive would the smaller states have to essentially abolish the electoral college and make their own citizens’ votes irrelevant?

The belief that democracy is better for everyone than an oligarchy based on 18th century elitists?
That the American people choosing the President is better than the partisans in state legislatures choosing a president for them, even when The People vote clearly and loudly against the partisan politician's choice?

How about that?
Tom

So that’s your pitch to the smaller states to make their citizens’ votes irrelevant? Well, at least you tried.

 

[Trausti]

Because it's the United States. The states existed before the federal government. The state's retention of sovereignty is a bedrock of our federal system.

So each state gets to determine how it governs within its borders and each state picks who it sends as representatives to that federal government. National elections should be chosen by the nation as a whole and each vote should be weighted equally.

I do realize it's the system we have so I'm not arguing with the fact that each states gets to determine it's electors as it wishes. I just don't think it's the best system for the year 2020 where most of the country is literate and has ready access to information. We'll just stick with minority rule until we can fix it.

Right. You’d need a constitutional amendment, which the smaller states would need to agree.

 

[Derec]

So that’s your pitch to the smaller states to make their citizens’ votes irrelevant? Well, at least you tried.

Votes in most states are irrelevant now. A vote in say Wyoming is basically worthless because the state is never in play.

 

[TomC]

Because it's the United States. The states existed before the federal government. The state's retention of sovereignty is a bedrock of our federal system.

So each state gets to determine how it governs within its borders and each state picks who it sends as representatives to that federal government. National elections should be chosen by the nation as a whole and each vote should be weighted equally.

I do realize it's the system we have so I'm not arguing with the fact that each states gets to determine it's electors as it wishes. I just don't think it's the best system for the year 2020 where most of the country is literate and has ready access to information. We'll just stick with minority rule until we can fix it.

Right. You’d need a constitutional amendment, which the smaller states would need to agree.

That's not true.
But I've come to expect certain answers.
Tom

 

[Trausti]

Right. You’d need a constitutional amendment, which the smaller states would need to agree.

That's not true.
But I've come to expect certain answers.
Tom

How do you think constitutional amendments are passed?

 

[Trausti]

So that’s your pitch to the smaller states to make their citizens’ votes irrelevant? Well, at least you tried.

Votes in most states are irrelevant now. A vote in say Wyoming is basically worthless because the state is never in play.

But combine the votes of the smaller states and they carry weight.

 

[Elixir]

What incentive would the smaller states have to essentially abolish the electoral college and make their own citizens’ votes irrelevant?

Right now a conservative in Washington has an irrelevant vote just like a liberal in Arkansas. Get rid of the EC and now everyone's vote counts the same. If there's more liberals than conservatives why should the conservatives get to rule over everyone?

Because it's the United States. The states existed before the federal government. The state's retention of sovereignty is a bedrock of our federal system.

More to the point, the Constitution establishes the EC and getting rid of it outright WOULD require a constitutional amendment, so 60 Senate votes are required.

 

[Trausti]

Because it's the United States. The states existed before the federal government. The state's retention of sovereignty is a bedrock of our federal system.

More to the point, the Constitution establishes the EC and getting rid of it outright WOULD require a constitutional amendment, so 60 Senate votes are required.

And 37 state legislatures approving.

 

[TomC]

Right. You’d need a constitutional amendment, which the smaller states would need to agree.

That's not true.
But I've come to expect certain answers.
Tom

How do you think constitutional amendments are passed?

No Constitutional Amendment needed to democratize our presidential elections.
Tom