End the winner takes all?

[Grayling813]

The electoral college performed its intended function for a long time. However, as the U.S. population became increasingly more consolidated in a just a few states, the goal of the electoral college cannot be achieved.It will never happen, but the Constitution needs to be amended to provide for electing the President and VP by a simple majority of the states. The President should be the President for all states and he should be equally concerned about the residents of all states. That's not the case when you must cater to large population areas.

Yes, it would be possible to have a tie, however that's highly unlikely. It's also easy to deal with a tie by using the percentage of victory in each state. For example, if the winning candidate received 5% more votes, then he gets 5 "points." In a tie, whoever gets more "points" wins the election.

Again, it will never happen.
Chas.

Agreed. It seems that the Republic as founded is broken.

[aero10]

Two thoughts.

1) If it was majority of states, there likely wouldn't be a tie possible because I imagine DC would still be treated as a state (they correctly have 3 electoral votes).

2) I'm becoming more of a fan of his Maine and Nebraska do their electoral votes. I think it aligns more with the original intent of the electoral college. 2 votes to the overall state winner, and the rest based on who wins each congressional district. I pulled some data with what would happen if this had been in place in prior elections. The only election that would have changed since 2000, is the 2012, Romney would have defeated Obama.

[srothstein]

It will never happen, but the Constitution needs to be amended to provide for electing the President and VP by a simple majority of the states.

This is very close to what we have as a backup when the electoral college fails. If no one gets a majority in the college, the House gets to decide who wins. In the House, each state delegation gets one vote. If there is a tie, it then goes to the Senate, which cannot have a tie by the rules of its structure. I would not argue with eliminating the electoral college and going to this system.

I should also point out that the electoral college is not truly a winner take all system. Each state gets to decide how its electoral voters shall vote. Two states have the electoral voters vote how the house districts vote, with two going how the state votes. Several states (15 right now I think) have joined a compact that will allot their votes to the winner of the national popular vote. If we want to change how Texas allots its votes, it is something to tackle in the state legislature.

As a final point, almost in reverse order, I was taught in civics classes way back in high school that the original design of the federal government was that the House would represent the people. This is why they were directly elected. The Senate would be delegates of the state, which is why the states got to decide how they were appointed. The President and VP were supposed to watch for the interests of the nation as a whole. This is also based on there being a difference between a representative and a delegate in how much authority they have on various issues. In addition to having lost the concept of the difference in the houses, we have lost the concept of the Senate looking out for the state interests. And, we are losing the concept of the president caring for the national interests as a whole.

I guess I should also point out that the Democratic party is trying to destroy the nation as a constitutional republic. I am not talking about the socialist policies or anything similar. I am talking about the way they are trying to claim we have a democracy and that the republicans are trying to destroy it. The "every vote counts" and allowing every one to vote and pushing for more votes are all indicative to me that the Democratic party is trying to destroy the concept of having limits on what the majority can order. This is called the tyranny of the majority and our nation's founders were geniuses in writing a constitution that worked to prevent this from happening.

[MaduroBU]

The electoral college performed its intended function for a long time. However, as the U.S. population became increasingly more consolidated in a just a few states, the goal of the electoral college cannot be achieved.It will never happen, but the Constitution needs to be amended to provide for electing the President and VP by a simple majority of the states. The President should be the President for all states and he should be equally concerned about the residents of all states. That's not the case when you must cater to large population areas.

Yes, it would be possible to have a tie, however that's highly unlikely. It's also easy to deal with a tie by using the percentage of victory in each state. For example, if the winning candidate received 5% more votes, then he gets 5 "points." In a tie, whoever gets more "points" wins the election.

Again, it will never happen.
Chas.

I think that this solution would move in the wrong direction. Everyone's vote should count, and right now the system disenfranchises MOST voters in MOST states, urban or rural. An elected official who won 48 to 52% doesn't really represent the "Will of the people", and even an overwhelmingly popular candidate who secured 70% of the vote is still represents at most 2/3 of his or her district. First past the post voting creates situations in which a few states decide the outcome and in which the voters in most states and districts don't have a say.

I am not a fan of political parties; I think that reducing ideology to a team sport is cancerous to open debate and frank discussion. But our current two party system is, though not enshrined in the law, far worse because it enforces binary decision making (see all of the crying about people "wasting votes"). I have not seen an electoral system better than legislative representation doled out by cumulative percentage of the vote. While local representation has merits, the divide today is on ideological lines that cross geographic districts.

To that end, I would say that the 5 things that would most heal our broken political process are:
1) a 2 term limit on all elected offices
2) ballots that legally cannot include incumbent status (I would add party affiliation except for point #5)
3) 6 year terms for president and 4 years terms for the house
4) national electronic voting administered by the federal government using a unique, free, and federally issued Voter ID. I think that we could easily leverage the physical post office locations for this purpose.
5) Legislative representation awarded not by state or district but by national vote share.

There are a lot of moderate folks who support the 2A but who have been pushed out by other issues.

[The Annoyed Man]

Seeing how no matter what, we always end up with half+ of the Country feeling left behind and frustrated, and to a point where folks are reaching the boiling point, I heard an interesting idea...get rid of winner takes all system and allow the winner to take the Presidency with loser taking the VP spot.
In this way, each Party would feel like they have representation and my conjecture is that this could prevent the coming Civil War, as each side would have a foot in (after all both would have to work together which could be positive for the Nation).

I just don’t see how we can go on, where 69+ million of folks will be beyond boiling point. Whether Dems or us, it fuels the fire. I’d say the same if Trump was in the decisive lead. We cannot go on like this if we want to remain as a Nation.

Just thinking of ways to prevent what will come very soon unless some drastic change comes.

Am I alone here?

Let me paraphrase.....

I view the effect of the left as gangrenous to the body politic. Now, we can keep them as part of our body politic.......and die......or we can amputate them from our body politic and regain our political health. I believe that we are well past the point of any kind of reconciliation. I, for one, cannot and will not ever again believe that the left wants what’s best for this country, even if they’re wrong about what’s best. I believe that they are deliberately destructive and are trying to tear down the country.....that they’d be happier if China was telling us what to do.

In that light, I can never learn to accept coexistence with them. I wish for a peaceful separation, so they can go their own way in their own country, and we can go our own way in ours, free of their gangrenous influence.

[MaduroBU]

Seeing how no matter what, we always end up with half+ of the Country feeling left behind and frustrated, and to a point where folks are reaching the boiling point, I heard an interesting idea...get rid of winner takes all system and allow the winner to take the Presidency with loser taking the VP spot.
In this way, each Party would feel like they have representation and my conjecture is that this could prevent the coming Civil War, as each side would have a foot in (after all both would have to work together which could be positive for the Nation).

I just don’t see how we can go on, where 69+ million of folks will be beyond boiling point. Whether Dems or us, it fuels the fire. I’d say the same if Trump was in the decisive lead. We cannot go on like this if we want to remain as a Nation.

Just thinking of ways to prevent what will come very soon unless some drastic change comes.

Am I alone here?

Let me paraphrase.....

I view the effect of the left as gangrenous to the body politic. Now, we can keep them as part of our body politic.......and die......or we can amputate them from our body politic and regain our political health. I believe that we are well past the point of any kind of reconciliation. I, for one, cannot and will not ever again believe that the left wants what’s best for this country, even if they’re wrong about what’s best. I believe that they are deliberately destructive and are trying to tear down the country.....that they’d be happier if China was telling us what to do.

In that light, I can never learn to accept coexistence with them. I wish for a peaceful separation, so they can go their own way in their own country, and we can go our own way in ours, free of their gangrenous influence.

I think that we have to look at what drives support for socialism. There isn't some huge pool of folks who find Marx innately appealing; there is a small pool of committed Marxists who spread that ideology to people who are open to it. If you look at Marx, he has some VERY good ideas on what ought to be (most of which overlap with Jeffersonian democracy, viewed through the filter of 1850s industrial Germany and Great Britain) and some VERY suspect ideas on who economics works. The idea that workers and the owners of capital negotiate over "surplus value" is true and can easily flip to very low wages through cartel behavior by employers; the idea that the workers generally ought to own the means of production is a good idea.

If you take those ideas at face value and present them to someone earning minimum wage with little prospect of saving, they are immediately appealing. That person doesn't have the room to rethink the long term failures of socialism because their situation is dictated by surviving paycheck to paycheck....the number of those people has grown steadily. No party that supports that state of affairs can or should survive.

Fortunately, the good ideas that Marx supported 1) predate him and 2) work better in a free market system. The most powerful socialist institution ever devised is the stock market. The workers ABSOLUTELY SHOULD own the means of production, but the critical failure of socialist efforts to achieve that arises from the assumption that ownership can be devoid of risk. Ownership IS the assumption of risk, and ownership which does not entail assumption of risk is not ownership. That's why schemes to forcibly redistribute shares of companies to workers fail as the worker simply liquidate the shares: they do not and indeed NEVER wanted to assume the risk that ownership entails. When the state holds those shares as a custodian for the people, it inevitably behaves inefficiently and to the unique benefit of those in power. In stark contrast, a system in which workers save and freely invest promotes actual ownership.

By the same token, Marx's thoughts on "Surplus value" have merit, though his conception of it is far better explained by prior economists and political philosophers. The proceeds of labor which exceed the inputs are the reason why we are no longer chasing small mammals through the underbrush with sharp sticks each and every day. The idea that this surplus belongs either entirely to "management/capitalists" or to "the workers" is to reduce a complicated and uncertain relationship to a binary decision. The owners of capital will tend to form cartels to keep wages down (thus securing all of the surplus production for themselves), which is the form of rent-seeking common to mercantilism. Surprisingly, socialist states do the same thing, though they are generally less productive, and divert that surplus toward the politically connected and warfare.

Labor unions can and have given workers a way to negotiate on even footing, and are no less a free market solution than any other free association. The historic Democratic base of workers who at once want to work for a living but also keep what they earn is open for the taking, and that is a real opportunity for the GOP. Many of those people are blue collar individuals who also have strong pro-2A leanings. Many of them are immigrants who are happy to work hard to build lives in America. Most of them are people who don't currently recognize a home in either party and are thus up for grabs.

[srothstein]

I think that this solution would move in the wrong direction. Everyone's vote should count, and right now the system disenfranchises MOST voters in MOST states, urban or rural. An elected official who won 48 to 52% doesn't really represent the "Will of the people", and even an overwhelmingly popular candidate who secured 70% of the vote is still represents at most 2/3 of his or her district. First past the post voting creates situations in which a few states decide the outcome and in which the voters in most states and districts don't have a say.

I disagree and think you missed a major point in our governmental system. Our current system does not disenfranchise anyone because there never was intended to be a one man-one vote system in our country. We are NOT a democracy. In a democracy each vote counts equally and everyone gets to vote. Our country was formed as constitutional republic. In a constitutional republic, people vote for governmental officials but it is not intended to be each individual vote counts equally. Instead there are rules in place to decide how to count the votes and take into account other factors than the individual vote. This was done to prevent what is called "the tyranny of the majority." Examples of this in our governmental structure include the way the house of representatives is constructed, the way the senate is constructed, and the electoral college.

An example of the tyranny of the majority that is particularly relevant to this forum would be gun control. If we had a democracy with every vote counting equally, a simple majority of the country could ban all firearms in the country. But the constitutional rules limit this from happening. If 26 rural states oppose this concept, their senators voting against it can block it, even though they only represent 17% of the population of the country.

While we may need to reform the electoral college, and we can certainly discuss if we want to make it more directly population related or to balance the disparity in populations, I have to say I would never want to live in a full democracy. I like our current form of government and want to keep it as a constitutional republic.

[MaduroBU]

I have to say I would never want to live in a full democracy. I like our current form of government and want to keep it as a constitutional republic.

I agree, but I think that two wrongs don't make a right. Preserving minority rights in the face of majority will is vital to any republic, and the current partitioning of votes is not a reliable hedge against the tyranny of the majority on many issues. I fear that as the scale of government grows, any ruling party attempting to bend the policies in areas the government already touches will infringe upon rights. I am increasingly of the opinion that a strong judiciary coupled with a more fragmented political party landscape would divide power in ways that would better protect ALL rights (not just the 2A).

I don't think that we will solve these issues on a message board, but my hope for the two party system doing anything but supporting the steady infringement of all rights like a tyrannical ratchet has faded. Once rights are lost to the government, they do not return.

[powerboatr]

The electoral college performed its intended function for a long time. However, as the U.S. population became increasingly more consolidated in a just a few states, the goal of the electoral college cannot be achieved.It will never happen, but the Constitution needs to be amended to provide for electing the President and VP by a simple majority of the states. The President should be the President for all states and he should be equally concerned about the residents of all states. That's not the case when you must cater to large population areas.

Yes, it would be possible to have a tie, however that's highly unlikely. It's also easy to deal with a tie by using the percentage of victory in each state. For example, if the winning candidate received 5% more votes, then he gets 5 "points." In a tie, whoever gets more "points" wins the election.

Again, it will never happen.
Chas.

i am thrilled that we are all having these types of conversations. wife and I tossed about the pres is selected by being winner, and VP is the candidate from the opposing side, and each state votes for the president. each state gets one vote based on how its legal voters have voted, no more states having more say so than the other in ways of electoral votes. Why should one state have more weight of the vote than another? we are all in this together. CA receives the same protections folks in Wyoming do, so why does ca have more of a say in how the country runs? Term limits on congress. no more than 3 terms as representative not to exceed 6 years in a lifetime, and 2 terms for senators, not to exceed 12 years in a life time. and NO MORE lifetime full salary once they leave.