Electoral math offers number of nightmares (USA Today)

[Nambe]

By Susan Page, USA TODAY

Even as President Bush delivers his convention address tonight and the final chapter of the campaign begins, strategists in both camps are preparing for the possibility of an unprecedented situation when it ends. ..

The Constitution outlines what follows in case of a tie, though that's happened only once, in 1800. The newly elected House of Representatives chooses the president from the top three finishers; each state has one vote. The newly elected Senate chooses the vice president; each senator has a vote. ..

Ride Don’t Drive * * It’s Global Cool

[Dhalgren]

1. There won't be a tie, my freind.

Either the election will be honest and Kerry will win by a hefty margin, or the election will be fixed and Bush will win by a small margin. No tie is in the works...

[Sperk]

2. I totally agree.....unless they underestimate the * hatred and don't

fix it "quite enough".

[BadGimp]

7. I'm bettin on a Fix

I have been following the voting technology issue since 01

the fix IS in

www.badgimp.blogspot.com

[GOPFighter]

3. Damn Right!

What pisses me off is that my state, Maryland, is solidly Democratic, right? We have a population of 5,312,000 and have 10 electoral votes. Well, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana combined, all solidly Republican, have only 2,795,000 people, but they have 12 electoral votes among them.

With half as many people as Maryland, they have more electoral votes than we do. What makes their votes twice as important than Marylanders???

We've GOT to abolish the Electoral College!

[RivetJoint]

4. Agree;

just as soon as we start letting states secede from the union (since each state entered into the union with the understanding that the vote of their senators (for the office of President) would be given equal weight to the vote of all other US senators from any other state.

[Sandpiper]

5. California vs. Wyoming

Here's one of the most egregious examples of why the EC needs to go:


California has 35,484,453 people and 55 electoral votes.

Wyoming has 498,703 people and 3 electoral votes.


Each California elector represents 645,171 people.

Each Wyoming elector represents 166,234 people.

Undemocratic? You bet!

[TahitiNut]

20. Well, the Electoral College model is so universally admired ...

... that we have countless (i.e. none) states that elect their Governors by allocating electoral votes to the counties.

... that we have countless (i.e. none) countries in the world who've copied the model for themselves.

... that we've held it up with pride as a model for Democracy... never.

[RivetJoint]

24. Then why hasn't it been changed?

Obviously, SOMEBODY likes it.

[TahitiNut]

18. Dirt always votes for the worms.

:silly:

[The_Counsel]

19. WOW!

That's probably the best argument for abolishing the Electoral College I've heard yet!

I can see how that happened (every state HAS to have at least three electoral votes), but that just seems... wrong. The only problem with abolishing the College is the small state (like the ones you mentioned) aren't about to willfully give up their power.

So what do we do?

I've been tinkering with this idea for a while, but was wondering how it would held up in 2000 and this year. We keep the Electoral College, but we mandate ALL states to distribute all but two of its votes proportionally. The winner gets the last two electoral votes.

Example: Pennsylvania carries 21 electoral votes; one for each Senator and 19 for each Representative. Kerry carries the state with 47% of the vote versus Bush's 46%, while Nader gets the remaining 7% (this IS hypothetical ya know :)). So... Nader would get 7% of of the distributed electoral votes, or 1; Bush would get 46% (9); and Kerry would get 47% (9) plus the two remaining votes for winning the popular vote. The final tally in Pennsylvania would be:

Kerry: 11
Bush: 9
Nader: 1

Now, there are three plusses that immediately present themselves in this system:

1. The individual vote seems to have more power than ever, because at least SOME electoral votes will go to the person they voted for, more often than not...
   
2. Even a third or fringe party candidate has a chance to score an electoral vote or two, depending how strong his/her support is in the individual states. How fair was it that Ross Perot got 22% of the popular vote in '92, yet got ZERO electoral votes...?
   
3. The candidates will have to pay attention to ALL of the states now, and not just a select few. Is Mississippi a lost cause? Campaign there ANYWAY! Better to garner 40% of the vote than 30%. That's as many as three electoral votes you wouldn't have had before...

Hey, it's just a half-baked scheme I've been kicking around lately. I think I'll post this again in GD and see what everyone thinks...

[Kolesar]

27. Maine does that

Colorado is considering that scheme. There is one midwestern state that does a proportional electors scheme without the "two votes to the winner" convention (to represent the Senators).

[jeanmarc]

21. Abolishing the electoral college is almost impossible

To get rid of the 'small states'(small in population), you would almost a great deal of them to get the amendment passed. You need 3/4rds of the states, the majority of which are 'small', to pass the amendment. I can't see that sort of altruism occuring, no mattter which party is in power.

[LauraK]

57. Money would work. They are repugs.

[loudsue]

6. Time to switch from being a Republik to being a Democracy?

I think this whole issue needs to be explored. This is the 21st Century, and it's time we re-think some of the original ideas.

But....Let's wait until the ADULTS are REALLY in charge. Ok?

:kick::kick::kick:

[moondust]

8. I'd think an Equal Protection suit could be filed.

But I'm no lawyer.

[Dookus]

10. Nope

you can't sue the constitution.

[moondust]

15. You a constitutional lawyer?

[RivetJoint]

16. Doesn't take a lawyer

to know that, by definition, the Constitution CAN'T be held unconstitutional. It would have to be amended.

[moondust]

22. Takes a lawyer

to KNOW if the courts can be petitioned for a remedy from unequal treatment under the law, which incidentally is what Bush did in 2000 to stop Florida from counting its votes. I don't believe the SCOTUS declared any laws unconstitional in that case but I could be wrong.

[RivetJoint]

23. And that has nothing to do with

this issure, now does it?

[bobbyboucher]

25. I believe it does. But keep hoping for

the grift.

[RivetJoint]

32. You believe wrong

You can't find part of the Constitution unconstitutional; you have to amend it.

[moondust]

26. What doesn't?

The issue I'm referring to is that listed above under "Damn Right!" which is actually where my initial post should have gone.

[RivetJoint]

29. You can't abolish the

electoral college by filing an "equal protection" lawsuit. You CAN'T find the electoral college (which is in the constitution) UNCONSTITUTIONAL; by definition it CAN'T be. Therefore filing suit under the 14th amendment gets you nowhere. You'd have to amend the Constitution.

[moondust]

35. It might not require abolition.

There may be other less dramatic remedies and some have been suggested in the "Damn Right!" thread above. Apologies for not posting up there where this belongs.

[RivetJoint]

38. None of those remedies

would address the "problem" articulated in the DAMN RIGHT post. A number of smaller states, with far less population than a much larger state (as given in "DAMN RIGHT's example), would STILL have more electoral votes...The only way around that is to abolish the electoral college.

[Dookus]

30. What you're asking for

is that a court declare part of the constitution itself unconstitutional. A moment's thought will reveal that can't happen.

[RivetJoint]

33. I don't think they understand that...

[moondust]

36. I don't think you understand that...

you're not a constitutional lawyer and no more an authority on this subject than the 50 people posting above you and below you.

[Dookus]

37. nonsense

one doesn't have to be a constitutional lawyer to know the basics. Can you determine if you have a cold without being a medical doctor?

[moondust]

39. Your mistake on this

is that the parameters within which you are framing this discussion in your mind are those of abolishing the electoral college. Those are not the parameters of this discussion.

[Dookus]

41. I have no idea what that means

but my statement is true about ALL parts of the constitution, not just that part describing the electoral college.

No court can rule a portion of the constitution to be unconstitutional.

[RivetJoint]

42. Abolishing or amending the electoral college IS the only

way to alter each state's number of electoral votes relative to another state's. The only way to do that is to amend the Constitution. Until that is done, Wyoming will always have it's electors representing fewer people than California's electors. That perceived unfairness is the the whole basis of this discussion.

[RivetJoint]

40. Buzz

Explain to me how the constitution can be held unconstitutional, ok?

One does not need to be a constutional lawyer to grasp basic common sense as it applies to the US Constitution.

[moondust]

43. You're stuck on "unconstitutional".

It's elementary that the Constitution cannot be ruled unconstitional. That's not the issue here. The issue is that there MAY be other less revolutionary remedies which few people outside the faculty of constitutional law would even be aware of. I know I'm not but that does not prevent me from exploring possibilities that MAY exist.

"Some men see things as they are and ask, Why? I dream of things that never were and ask, Why not?" Robert F. Kennedy

[Dookus]

44. Sorry

there simply isn't. The constitution provides for the Electoral college. No court can change that. ONLY a constitutional amendment can do so. And as has been discussed, it ain't gonna happen.

The only partial remedy is to get states themselves to allocate their electors more proportionally.

[RivetJoint]

45. We're stuck on it

because its (the Constitution) the only vehicle which can address the issue of electoral apportionment AMONGST the states. There ARE no other possibilities.

[moondust]

46. That YOU know of. eom

[RivetJoint]

47. You can't be this dense.

Google the Constitution please and read up on the electoral college.

[moondust]

48. You are that arrogant.

If you want me or anybody else to believe that YOU can speak authoritatively on the ins and outs of constitutional law then you'd better have some credentials at the ready. Until then...buh bye...

[RivetJoint]

49. Buzz

You're probably the only person on DU who can't grasp this simple notion: YOU CAN NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT EACH STATE'S US SENATOR WILL GET ONE ELECTORAL VOTE (a total of 2), each state will have at LEAST one electoral vote from it's house member(s) (each state will have a minimum of 3 electoral votes), that the number of electors is fixed, and that each California elector represents 645,171 people while each Wyoming elector represents 166,234 people (as their population's now stand) UNLESS you amend the Constitution! That is the crux of this whole thread; the unfairness of California's vote being "weighed down." The ONLY way to rectify that "problem" BETWEEN the states is by amending the Constitution!

[Dhalgren]

50. Where in the constitution does it mandate

how the states will proportion the number of delegates to the Electoral College?

[RivetJoint]

52. That's not the issue

the issue is the numbers between the states. The states individually can do whatever the heck they want INSIDE their own state. That was not the issue. The issue was the "California/Wyoming" imbalance.

[Dhalgren]

55. So there are areas where the elctoral college

can be tweaked without recourse to the constitution. What the earlier poster was saying is that there may be ways to adjust the issue without a constitutional amendment. Maybe those avenues can be explored short of a constitutional crisis.

[RivetJoint]

58. Not BETWEEN the states

you need to look at the context of this thread.

[Dhalgren]

61. I think that you (as usual) got off on a context

of your own and are now demanding everyone follow along. Thanks, but no thanks.

[llmart]

9. Just the whoring media....

setting the stage for another stolen election.

[GRClarkesq]

11. You would have to amend the constitution

and convince enough of those small states why it would be good for them to give up political power. Probably a tough sell.

OR

change the "winner take all" system of awarding electoral votes in each state. I do not know if this works to either party's advantage. Colorado will have this on the ballot in November.

[RivetJoint]

12. The small (population) states would never

go for it. This would never even get out of the Senate let alone get the 3/4 states needed for ratification. Good idea; unfeasible at this time.

[Cicero]

13. You'd need a coordinated push in the largest states...

...California, Texas, New York, Florida, and Ohio.

Get proportional allocation of electors passed in those 5 states, and the rest will likely follow.

Later,

[RivetJoint]

14. No way

The small states would NOT vote against their best interests just to follow the pack.

[GRClarkesq]

17. Agreed, small states would see it

as power grab by the larger states. Their chances of ever seeing a presidential candidate would go from low to nonexistant.

[dansolo]

28. They could have a hybrid system

The electors based on the congressional districts could be allocated proportionally, and the remaining two could go to the overall state winner. The smaller states will still have a greater impact per capita, but it would be far more equitable than what we currently have.

[Dhalgren]

51. He talking about proportional distribution

of electors - not a constitutional issue.

[RivetJoint]

53. That does not address

the topic I was discussing, which is apportionment of electors BETWEEN the several states.

[Dhalgren]

54. I was just telling you what the poster you responded to

was saying.

[RivetJoint]

59. ok!

[GOPFighter]

31. The best strategy is to...

...demand that Presidential elections be decided by the popular vote. Never mention the Electoral college. How could anyone be against something so fair and equitable. This forces the opposition (GOP) to make the convoluted argument about why we should keep the Electoral College.

[RivetJoint]

34. You'd STILL have to amend

the Constitution. I don't see the small states letting that happen. Not at this time in history.

[kodi]

56. stranger things have happened, last time it came down to a single vote

.

[highnooner]

60. Frankly,

I have no problem with the ways things are. This a states' rights issue and should remain that way. There is a reason that this was set up that way. You have to remember that more than a few wise men thought this up. I'll take their judgment over current-day politicos any day.

Remember, this is a republic and not a democracy. I fear a democracy far more than a republic. The tyranny of the majority resulted in the reigns of Hitler, Mao, and Saddam. Granted, the USA has made only one mistake that was settled by nine people on he Supreme court. However, that is all the more reason to vote for Kerry. We need diversity on the SC!