Removal of the Electoral College?

[46Tbird]

I read this in Wired magazine the other day and found it interesting. It is a decidedly “progressive” rag, with stabs at the current administration and unwavering support for Kerry. Reading it reminds me of the unshakeable faith in technology this country had in the 1950s. This month’s issue is a special election issue and discusses some of the new developments within our electoral system, including problems with Diebold’s proprietary software, grassroots campaigns, shift toward web-based vote recruiting, etc.

Of all their ideas and proposals, I liked this one. Feel free to shoot it up, I just want to see what some of the political pundits here think about it.

Problem #2: The Electoral College is Broken

Solution: Move to a Popular Vote

And make it count with instant runoffs. In this system, voters rank the candidates in order of preference. If the first “winner” doesn’t get at least 50 percent of the vote, the least favorite candidate is dropped, and those votes go to the voters’ next favorite candidate. You do a new count, and repeat the process until someone gets 50 percent. This way votes aren’t wasted: If voters don’t get their first choice, they get something close – their second or third choice. It also allows third parties to emerge without “spoiling it” for like-minded candidates. In 1992, for example, many votes for Perot would have transferred to George Bush, Sr., and Clinton might never have triumphed. (The reverse applies to Gore and Nader.) The system hasn’t been tried partly because the big parties selfishly don’t want to encourage competition, and partly because all that recounting is logistically tricky. But now that we’re moving to electronic voting, “the technological barrier vanishes. Computers can do those recounts in an instant,” says Rob Richie, executive director of the Center for Voting and Democracy. Digital tech could usher in an age where your vote finally matters.





One problem I see right off the bat is that removing the electoral college will unfairly sway our political climate toward the ideologies of our urban population centers. Any other thoughts?

[utdbear]

Someone in Bismarck, North Dakota has the same right to have the presidential campaigns in his hometown as much as the person in New York City. With the electoral college gone, that won't happen.

[Paladin]

I see lots of problems since the majority of large urban areas are very liberal. No wonder a liberal publication is calling for it.

[46Tbird]

With the proliferation of mass media, why does a presidential candidate need to go anywhere to get out the message? :confused:

Without something like this, how will we ever go to a 3+ party system? (well, the Democrats may implode after this election, we shall see)

I'd sure like to be able to vote for a candidate based on his/her ideas vs how much money they can raise to make slanderous ad campaigns..................

[Toolman]

I think what really needs to change is not the electoral college.. but we really should have multible presidents for different areas on the country.. Like one for the west east south and north.. and they would work together on world issues and be responcible for there area on social programs..


It is a fact that city life in san francisco is a lot different then living in the county out in oklahoma.. its not fair that one guy has to make up rules that effect everyone.. This way you could pick the part of the country that has the issues you support and you know the president cant alone cant do anything half the country would be against..

[utdbear]

I think what really needs to change is not the electoral college.. but we really should have multible presidents for different areas on the country.. Like one for the west east south and north.. and they would work together on world issues and be responcible for there area on social programs..


It is a fact that city life in san francisco is a lot different then living in the county out in oklahoma.. its not fair that one guy has to make up rules that effect everyone.. This way you could pick the part of the country that has the issues you support and you know the president cant alone cant do anything half the country would be against..

That is why we have state governments.

[Toolman]

but I think the state need more power..

[utdbear]

They have enough power, they need to figure out how to use it better.

[46Tbird]

*GASP*

Limit the federal government and make states more responsible as the founding fathers envisioned?!??

We can't do that!

[Toolman]

I still think it sucks that 80 percent of california is liberal and probably 80 percent of texas is concervative.. and if the president that dont want gets in they will be screwed.. When if they had there own president in that area they wouldnt.. let kerry be the president in the west and raise taxes while we can have bush in south and lower them..

[Pro Trash]

I read this in Wired magazine the other day and found it interesting. It is a decidedly “progressive” rag, with stabs at the current administration and unwavering support for Kerry. Reading it reminds me of the unshakeable faith in technology this country had in the 1950s. This month’s issue is a special election issue and discusses some of the new developments within our electoral system, including problems with Diebold’s proprietary software, grassroots campaigns, shift toward web-based vote recruiting, etc.

Of all their ideas and proposals, I liked this one. Feel free to shoot it up, I just want to see what some of the political pundits here think about it.

Problem #2: The Electoral College is Broken

Solution: Move to a Popular Vote

And make it count with instant runoffs. In this system, voters rank the candidates in order of preference. If the first “winner” doesn’t get at least 50 percent of the vote, the least favorite candidate is dropped, and those votes go to the voters’ next favorite candidate. You do a new count, and repeat the process until someone gets 50 percent. This way votes aren’t wasted: If voters don’t get their first choice, they get something close – their second or third choice. It also allows third parties to emerge without “spoiling it” for like-minded candidates. In 1992, for example, many votes for Perot would have transferred to George Bush, Sr., and Clinton might never have triumphed. (The reverse applies to Gore and Nader.) The system hasn’t been tried partly because the big parties selfishly don’t want to encourage competition, and partly because all that recounting is logistically tricky. But now that we’re moving to electronic voting, “the technological barrier vanishes. Computers can do those recounts in an instant,” says Rob Richie, executive director of the Center for Voting and Democracy. Digital tech could usher in an age where your vote finally matters.





One problem I see right off the bat is that removing the electoral college will unfairly sway our political climate toward the ideologies of our urban population centers. Any other thoughts?

Well it has its benefits and its detractors so it's detractors are; it is complex in design and like last election may not allow the person with the most popular votes to win. Its benefits are easily recognized but of course I teach this exact subject each April so I already understand its significance. The positive aspects are it maintains the two party system ideal, prevents extreme parties from winning in a state, and the main one that comes to mind is it keeps with the importance of the federal system we have by facilitating the importance of state lines that would other wise be inconsequential. My last thought is it would be too difficult to amend the constitution. So I vote yes for the Electoral College.

[HookEm]

IT is not broken......it works as it was intended. See attached document.

[46Tbird]

IT is not broken......it works as it was intended. See attached document.What if I say it is broken, and that the impossibility of getting a third party candidate elected is my proof?

[Toolman]

following data: Gore won 575,184 square miles of counties to Bush’s 2,432,456; Gore’s won counties population totaled 127, 000, 000 while Bush’s total was 143,000,000;The growth of these county’s won, was Gore, at 5% to Bush, at 14%. The most telling statistic? Gore won 676 counties. Bush, in 2,436. The Federalists nailed it.4..

This make no sense to me..

its not gores fault that liberals live closer together..

[Toolman]

I have a feeling women republicans would vote for her..

[HookEm]

following data: Gore won 575,184 square miles of counties to Bush’s 2,432,456; Gore’s won counties population totaled 127, 000, 000 while Bush’s total was 143,000,000;The growth of these county’s won, was Gore, at 5% to Bush, at 14%. The most telling statistic? Gore won 676 counties. Bush, in 2,436. The Federalists nailed it.4..

This make no sense to me..

its not gores fault that liberals live closer together..

The Federalists' concern was that a candidate could win by simply picking a densely popualted area, campaining like mad there, and while fufilling the will of that small region, nullifying the will of the nation as a whole. This would also be an easier method to corrupt an election, if you only had to pick one small densely popualted area to practice one's "shennanigans" in.....

[46Tbird]

That's why I say that with the emergence of mass media, that a candidate would be unable to campaign only in small, densely populated urban areas and still win the election.

[talisman]

Personally, I like the idea of getting rid of it.

[Toolman]

how about we make darth vader the ruler and keep him in till he dies..

[46Tbird]

What seems to be a much bigger source of concern is the software glitch no one is discussing in the whatchamacallit voting system...Actually, that was Problem #1. ;) We Can't Count Votes Correctly

Solution: Open-source the voting machines.

As the 2000 electoral fiasco proved, [see what I mean about the liberal slant] nothing in a democracy is more important than counting votes accurately. But old technologies - punchcards, optical scanning, and lever devices - are riddled with flaws. Worse, the current trend is to replace them with electronic voting machines made by companies like Diebold, which have an even scarier record of mysteriously erasing votes. Why do these new devices malfunction? Well, we can't tell: They run on proprietary code that only a few government auditors have been permitted to examine.

The solution is to go open source. Officials in the Australian Capital Territory, that country's Washington DC, used an open source project to develop their regional voting software, and it runs with 100 percent accuracy. (They checked it in 2001 against a set of hand-counted paper ballots.) "What goes in is what comes out," says Phillip Green, the region's electoral commissioner. The result: software as transparent as democracy ought to be.

[trey85stang]

One problem I see right off the bat is that removing the electoral college will unfairly sway our political climate toward the ideologies of our urban population centers. Any other thoughts?


that is correct... the electoral college is provided to make sure each county gets a fair say in who they want to run the country. The electoral college works in a similar fashion to the House or Reps and the Senate. If it comes to a point where the House of Reps and Senate are not needed.. then the electoral college can die with them.

Otherwise, if the electoral college is flawed.. fix the flaw or deal with it.

[Toolman]

as a network engineer.. I wouldnt trust it I also wonder how they till transfer the voting data to the servers.. I see buggy software everyday and its easy to get hacked even with a firewall and IDS..

[trey85stang]

as a network engineer.. I wouldnt trust it I also wonder how they till transfer the voting data to the servers.. I see buggy software everyday and its easy to get hacked even with a firewall and IDS..


I would trust the software.. its pretty hardcore. Besides.. its open source there are tons of people looking over the code each day.

Wtf do you work?? I sure hope as a network engineer you do not write like you write on this site.

[Toolman]

I would be fired if I wrote like I do here at work.. but im not working for the forum so I dont care..

[Toolman]

This is from John Titor I thought it was pretty good..

The reason the job of President was split into an office of 5 has 4 main reasons. With 5 (presidents), foreign policy is more consistent, power shifting between parties has less of an impact on the overall government, individual strengths between presidents add to the strength of the overall office, and one president is elected for each major area in the United States..

[HookEm]

uhm....yeah.....ok.

[Toolman]

if civil war breaks out next year thats what we have to look forward too..

[HookEm]

if civil war breaks out next year thats what we have to look forward too..


http://zapatopi.net/afdb/alnose.jpg

[Toolman]

is that armor or something..

[HookEm]

is that armor or something..

Aluminum foil to shield your mind from being read by "them."