Thursday, August 05, 2004
a word from our readers
(first let me say that if you missed marmar's post on nomar, the media, and the lost innocence of a aging fan, scroll down to the previous post - its a doozy)
Today, ladies and gentlemen, I am honored to present to you our first Guest Post, sent by our friend Derek. He hails from the thriving metropolis of Glastonbury, Connecticut, just outside of the marvelous Insurance Capital of the World, and currently rests his head at night in the quite, rural outpost known as Chicago, Illinois. (yeah, that one - just south of Evanston). Ladies, I hate to break your heart, but Derek is off the market. I, on the other hand, am available. Come and get me. And now, with no further ado...uh, actually, i am spoken for (sorry rachel)... his post:
Why the Electoral Process Needs to be Updated
First, I would like to thank Dave, Stu, and Pat for letting me post this here; hopefully I will not scare too many people from their page.
To many people, the Electoral College is a very confusing idea. There is a good reason for that. There are 538 electors, one for each Senator and Representative (100 and 435 respectively) plus 3 for the District of Columbia, so 270 electoral votes are needed to win the White House. Each state gets the number of electors equal to the number of Senators and Representatives they send to Washington. Therefore, the number ranges from 3 (Wyoming, DC, South Dakota, and others) to 54 (California). Because the number of Representatives each state has is relative to the population of that state, the electors are distributed loosely in proportion to the population of the states (but more on that later). In every state except two (Maine and Nebraska) the candidate that wins the popular vote in that state receives all of the electoral votes from that state. Electors are chosen by each candidate on a state-to-state basis, with the assumption that only the electors from the candidate that wins the popular vote in each state will be used. So, by voting for a particular candidate, what you are really voting for are that candidate’s electors to represent you in the ‘real’ election. For the 2004 Presidential campaign, this election date is December 13, when the electoral votes are tabulated. Of course, because of the major TV stations uncanny ability to predict the outcome in each state when only 2% of the ballots are in, we will most likely know the winner on November 2.
So, to recap: each state has the same number of electoral votes as their Senators and Representatives combined; the candidate who wins the popular vote in each state sends their electors to Washington, where on Dec 13, their votes will be cast for the next president; and the first candidate to have 270 electoral votes wins the presidency. Sounds complicated so far; you do not even want to know what happens if no candidate gets 270 electoral votes.
We are taught growing up in America that here we have this wonderful thing called democracy, where everyone can vote, all votes are counted the same, and whomever wins the popular vote wins the election. We all know from 2000 that the last statement is not true, but do all votes count the same? My answer is “no”. Consider this, in the 2000 general election, Michigan (a ‘battleground’ state) had 6,859,332 registered voters and had 18 electoral votes, or each person had a value of 0.0000026 electoral votes. (Though these numbers assume 100% voter turnout, this point is valid as long as turnout is the same from state to state) In Wyoming (where Bush won easily) there were 220,012 registered voters for 3 electoral votes, so each person had a value of 0.0000136 electoral votes. This means that each person’s vote was worth over 5X as much in Wyoming as in Michigan! The number of representatives (and therefore electoral votes) is updated based on the census taken every 10 years to try and match population movements. But, no matter how many people move into or out of states before 2008, the electoral votes will stay the same, the discrepancy between Michigan and Wyoming can grow even more!
The electoral voting process also leads to many interesting behaviors during an election year. Illinois is widely expected to go to the Democratic candidate, largely because of Chicago, so both candidates spend little time in the countries 3rd largest city, opting instead to spend much more money and time in smaller cities, such as St. Louis, and Pittsburgh because these are in battleground states. Branding states as battleground states (maybe 10-12 will fall into this category) leaves most states, including Illinois, New York, and California on the outside looking in. In fact, in reference to Stu’s post from a while back about not voting, I think this is the strongest argument. Take California for instance, which has about 16 million registered voters. If Kerry were to win California by a 2-1 margin, those 5 million votes for Bush would be wasted. As long as Kerry wins by 1 vote, he gets all 54 (now 55) electoral votes. This is a valid argument for ‘my vote does not count’ defense.
Going to school in Missouri in 2000, I saw a lot of friends who were from states such as New York, where the winner was never in doubt decide to register in Missouri, because the race would be much closer there, and because their vote for Gore in New York would not matter as Gore would win without it. Of course, if everyone decided to do this, then there would be nobody to vote in New York, and the electoral votes would be very valuable to the people still living there.
My point to all this is: the electoral college is an antiquated system that unfairly takes the idea of one person/one vote and gives more value to the votes of some people. The alternative is the most democratic of them all, the person with the most vote wins, aka, the popular vote. I think that deciding national elections by popular vote would solve many of the problems with the current system, and also motivate more people to register and vote. The inequality of people’s votes between Michigan and Wyoming, solved. Those 5 million votes for the candidate that did not win California, not wasted. People registering to vote in a different state that is a closer race, no need. The effect of population movements between the 10-year censuses, do not matter. People not motivated to vote because the winner has been decided in the state they live in 4 months ahead of time, not longer valid. In the popular vote, EVERY VOTE COUNTS.
Of course, I am not the first person to make this point, and I am sure that every Gore supporter has made these points many times since 2000, but for some reason it never goes anywhere. There have been over 700 proposed bills that would have changed or eliminated the electoral college brought up in congress over the past 200 hundred years, and only one of them, the 12th Amendment has been successful. The main problem is, in my opinion, that the current system does not really hurt the two party system, and they do not want to change it. Consider this, in 1992, Ross Perot received 19% of the popular vote, and exactly 0 electoral votes. Now, although the popular vote in each state is important, unless you can win a state, it does not matter, and no 3rd party candidate is a threat to win a state in the near future. While Nader may have cost Gore a couple of states in 2000, he was not a threat to win the presidency, he just hurt Gore’s bid. I think that the two party’s do not have a problem losing 1/2 the time in order to keep the system the way it is. I am not sure what it will take to get this system updated, but one more opinion will not hurt.
Thanks for your time, and please make comments.
-Derek
Today, ladies and gentlemen, I am honored to present to you our first Guest Post, sent by our friend Derek. He hails from the thriving metropolis of Glastonbury, Connecticut, just outside of the marvelous Insurance Capital of the World, and currently rests his head at night in the quite, rural outpost known as Chicago, Illinois. (yeah, that one - just south of Evanston). Ladies, I hate to break your heart, but Derek is off the market. I, on the other hand, am available. Come and get me. And now, with no further ado...uh, actually, i am spoken for (sorry rachel)... his post:
Why the Electoral Process Needs to be Updated
First, I would like to thank Dave, Stu, and Pat for letting me post this here; hopefully I will not scare too many people from their page.
To many people, the Electoral College is a very confusing idea. There is a good reason for that. There are 538 electors, one for each Senator and Representative (100 and 435 respectively) plus 3 for the District of Columbia, so 270 electoral votes are needed to win the White House. Each state gets the number of electors equal to the number of Senators and Representatives they send to Washington. Therefore, the number ranges from 3 (Wyoming, DC, South Dakota, and others) to 54 (California). Because the number of Representatives each state has is relative to the population of that state, the electors are distributed loosely in proportion to the population of the states (but more on that later). In every state except two (Maine and Nebraska) the candidate that wins the popular vote in that state receives all of the electoral votes from that state. Electors are chosen by each candidate on a state-to-state basis, with the assumption that only the electors from the candidate that wins the popular vote in each state will be used. So, by voting for a particular candidate, what you are really voting for are that candidate’s electors to represent you in the ‘real’ election. For the 2004 Presidential campaign, this election date is December 13, when the electoral votes are tabulated. Of course, because of the major TV stations uncanny ability to predict the outcome in each state when only 2% of the ballots are in, we will most likely know the winner on November 2.
So, to recap: each state has the same number of electoral votes as their Senators and Representatives combined; the candidate who wins the popular vote in each state sends their electors to Washington, where on Dec 13, their votes will be cast for the next president; and the first candidate to have 270 electoral votes wins the presidency. Sounds complicated so far; you do not even want to know what happens if no candidate gets 270 electoral votes.
We are taught growing up in America that here we have this wonderful thing called democracy, where everyone can vote, all votes are counted the same, and whomever wins the popular vote wins the election. We all know from 2000 that the last statement is not true, but do all votes count the same? My answer is “no”. Consider this, in the 2000 general election, Michigan (a ‘battleground’ state) had 6,859,332 registered voters and had 18 electoral votes, or each person had a value of 0.0000026 electoral votes. (Though these numbers assume 100% voter turnout, this point is valid as long as turnout is the same from state to state) In Wyoming (where Bush won easily) there were 220,012 registered voters for 3 electoral votes, so each person had a value of 0.0000136 electoral votes. This means that each person’s vote was worth over 5X as much in Wyoming as in Michigan! The number of representatives (and therefore electoral votes) is updated based on the census taken every 10 years to try and match population movements. But, no matter how many people move into or out of states before 2008, the electoral votes will stay the same, the discrepancy between Michigan and Wyoming can grow even more!
The electoral voting process also leads to many interesting behaviors during an election year. Illinois is widely expected to go to the Democratic candidate, largely because of Chicago, so both candidates spend little time in the countries 3rd largest city, opting instead to spend much more money and time in smaller cities, such as St. Louis, and Pittsburgh because these are in battleground states. Branding states as battleground states (maybe 10-12 will fall into this category) leaves most states, including Illinois, New York, and California on the outside looking in. In fact, in reference to Stu’s post from a while back about not voting, I think this is the strongest argument. Take California for instance, which has about 16 million registered voters. If Kerry were to win California by a 2-1 margin, those 5 million votes for Bush would be wasted. As long as Kerry wins by 1 vote, he gets all 54 (now 55) electoral votes. This is a valid argument for ‘my vote does not count’ defense.
Going to school in Missouri in 2000, I saw a lot of friends who were from states such as New York, where the winner was never in doubt decide to register in Missouri, because the race would be much closer there, and because their vote for Gore in New York would not matter as Gore would win without it. Of course, if everyone decided to do this, then there would be nobody to vote in New York, and the electoral votes would be very valuable to the people still living there.
My point to all this is: the electoral college is an antiquated system that unfairly takes the idea of one person/one vote and gives more value to the votes of some people. The alternative is the most democratic of them all, the person with the most vote wins, aka, the popular vote. I think that deciding national elections by popular vote would solve many of the problems with the current system, and also motivate more people to register and vote. The inequality of people’s votes between Michigan and Wyoming, solved. Those 5 million votes for the candidate that did not win California, not wasted. People registering to vote in a different state that is a closer race, no need. The effect of population movements between the 10-year censuses, do not matter. People not motivated to vote because the winner has been decided in the state they live in 4 months ahead of time, not longer valid. In the popular vote, EVERY VOTE COUNTS.
Of course, I am not the first person to make this point, and I am sure that every Gore supporter has made these points many times since 2000, but for some reason it never goes anywhere. There have been over 700 proposed bills that would have changed or eliminated the electoral college brought up in congress over the past 200 hundred years, and only one of them, the 12th Amendment has been successful. The main problem is, in my opinion, that the current system does not really hurt the two party system, and they do not want to change it. Consider this, in 1992, Ross Perot received 19% of the popular vote, and exactly 0 electoral votes. Now, although the popular vote in each state is important, unless you can win a state, it does not matter, and no 3rd party candidate is a threat to win a state in the near future. While Nader may have cost Gore a couple of states in 2000, he was not a threat to win the presidency, he just hurt Gore’s bid. I think that the two party’s do not have a problem losing 1/2 the time in order to keep the system the way it is. I am not sure what it will take to get this system updated, but one more opinion will not hurt.
Thanks for your time, and please make comments.
-Derek
# posted by Anonymous @ 1:20 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
The idea of the electors was sort of a good one: Let people who are more informed than the general populace decide who best to lead the country. But somewhere along the lines, this got blurred and the electors were bound to vote for whoever the state won. I propose several measures in which this could be fixed:
1) Have splittable electorates based on how well a candidate does. In California, if someone wins 66% of the vote, 66% of the electors vote for that candidate. And then, round upwards, giving any remaining electoral votes to the majority candidate. So, if Wyoming is won 51%-49%, 2 electoral votes go to the 51%, 1 vote to the 49%. In order for all 3 to go to one candidate, it would have to be closer to 100% than 66.6%... so, about 83.3%.
2) Or... actually have an electoral election, where you would vote for an elector to represent your region and your views. This could be done on a county level, so that you could actually get to know your elector and his/her stand on the issues. The problem with this, obviously, is that the issue of losing your voice could be even worse. What if your elector in your county was Republican, and you were the only Democrat? You could sort of resolve this by doing electors by percentage as well, but then all you're really doing is consolidating votes. Which isn't a bad thing, necessarily. The advantage, obviously, would be that you wouldn't have to feel badly when you only glanced over the issues and didn't go into any depth- that's what the elector would do for you. Yes, that's sort of what we want our politicians to do... but does anyone really think that politicians are there to serve our interests? They serve their own interests first (just like everyone else), and their lobbyists second, and to keep up appearances, throw a couple bones to their constituents third.
But the sort-of good news is that this could possibly work. Corruption and bribery of electors wouldn't be any more a problem than corruption and bribery of politicians. And that's pretty good. Plus, by serving a smaller constituency, the electors would sort of be shielded from bribery by sheer numbers.
3) Get rid of the electoral college. This would obviously be ridiculously easy compared to the above two. The argument is that this would weaken the 2 party system. As much as I would like to weaken the 2 party system, this is simply not true. People don't bother to vote for 3rd party candidates because they know they won't win. Even with Perot in '92, people still wouldn't have believed that Perot could possibly get more of a percentage than Bush and Clinton. And yes, there would be the problem of no candidate getting a majority... but that problem still existed in 92, and no one cared then, right? Plus, if we were so concerned about candidates and the majority, 2000 would never have happened. We would like our candidates to be elected with at least 50% of the country supporting them (but that doesn't happen anyway... most of the country doesn't vote). So if a candidate got elected with 34% of the vote, would he really be any more unpopular than a guy who got less than 50% and who polarized the entire country? Of course not.
But anyway, I digress. 3rd party candidates won't win because the 2 parties will adjust to give the country what they want- a candidate that is at least palatable to half the country. And with all the money behind the 2 party system, 3rd party candidates will always be marginalized even in a popular vote scenario. And if I'm wrong, then even better.
Post a Comment
1) Have splittable electorates based on how well a candidate does. In California, if someone wins 66% of the vote, 66% of the electors vote for that candidate. And then, round upwards, giving any remaining electoral votes to the majority candidate. So, if Wyoming is won 51%-49%, 2 electoral votes go to the 51%, 1 vote to the 49%. In order for all 3 to go to one candidate, it would have to be closer to 100% than 66.6%... so, about 83.3%.
2) Or... actually have an electoral election, where you would vote for an elector to represent your region and your views. This could be done on a county level, so that you could actually get to know your elector and his/her stand on the issues. The problem with this, obviously, is that the issue of losing your voice could be even worse. What if your elector in your county was Republican, and you were the only Democrat? You could sort of resolve this by doing electors by percentage as well, but then all you're really doing is consolidating votes. Which isn't a bad thing, necessarily. The advantage, obviously, would be that you wouldn't have to feel badly when you only glanced over the issues and didn't go into any depth- that's what the elector would do for you. Yes, that's sort of what we want our politicians to do... but does anyone really think that politicians are there to serve our interests? They serve their own interests first (just like everyone else), and their lobbyists second, and to keep up appearances, throw a couple bones to their constituents third.
But the sort-of good news is that this could possibly work. Corruption and bribery of electors wouldn't be any more a problem than corruption and bribery of politicians. And that's pretty good. Plus, by serving a smaller constituency, the electors would sort of be shielded from bribery by sheer numbers.
3) Get rid of the electoral college. This would obviously be ridiculously easy compared to the above two. The argument is that this would weaken the 2 party system. As much as I would like to weaken the 2 party system, this is simply not true. People don't bother to vote for 3rd party candidates because they know they won't win. Even with Perot in '92, people still wouldn't have believed that Perot could possibly get more of a percentage than Bush and Clinton. And yes, there would be the problem of no candidate getting a majority... but that problem still existed in 92, and no one cared then, right? Plus, if we were so concerned about candidates and the majority, 2000 would never have happened. We would like our candidates to be elected with at least 50% of the country supporting them (but that doesn't happen anyway... most of the country doesn't vote). So if a candidate got elected with 34% of the vote, would he really be any more unpopular than a guy who got less than 50% and who polarized the entire country? Of course not.
But anyway, I digress. 3rd party candidates won't win because the 2 parties will adjust to give the country what they want- a candidate that is at least palatable to half the country. And with all the money behind the 2 party system, 3rd party candidates will always be marginalized even in a popular vote scenario. And if I'm wrong, then even better.
<< Home
