Federal Voting Law

[guidi2009]

Just a quick question. How would you guys feel about a federal law making the Presidential Election like this:

All electoral votes would be awarded by %. For example

Guy A wins 55% of Texas. He wins 55% of the EV

Guy B Wins 40% Of Texas. He gets 40% of the EV

[dickay]

wouldn't each state then need the same amount of electoral votes?? its already broken up based upon population. i think until i hear sound reasoning against that the winner taketh all as thats the majority opinion within that state.

[filihok]

I had the same first thought as Dickay. It would defeat the purpose of the electoral college. Which may or may not be bad. It would also give 3rd parties a little more recognition. Which would surely be good

My second thought is that the Fed gov needs to not matter so much and the state govs need to matter a lot more.

[guidi2009]

There is most definitely tons of detail I left out, just to be simplistic.

To answer dickay.

EV would remain the same based on the amount of representatives.

The positives of this would be the following.

1. Lets take Washington DC and Texas for example. In DC why vote if you are a democrat? in Texas why vote if you are a repub? you know you are going to win. Our voter turnout is horrible and needs to be improved.

This will increase voting across the board. Democrats in Texas will now get there votes counted and show up more while repubs in TX will show up more to raise the repub %

2. Battleground states have an unfair advantage, they receive extra beneifts just because they are a battleground states.

3. This will open the door to third parties.

4. Maine and Nebraska already do this and NC looks like the may do it soon. It is unfair to have some states doing this and some not. This will decide elections, I mean all you need is CA to do this and a democrat will never win ever again.

number 4 is what worries me and we are heading there, matter of fact we are there already.

[dickay]

There is most definitely tons of detail I left out, just to be simplistic.

To answer dickay.

EV would remain the same based on the amount of representatives.

The positives of this would be the following.

1. Lets take Washington DC and Texas for example. In DC why vote if you are a democrat? in Texas why vote if you are a repub? you know you are going to win. Our voter turnout is horrible and needs to be improved.

This will increase voting across the board. Democrats in Texas will now get there votes counted and show up more while repubs in TX will show up more to raise the repub %

2. Battleground states have an unfair advantage, they receive extra beneifts just because they are a battleground states.

3. This will open the door to third parties.

4. Maine and Nebraska already do this and NC looks like the may do it soon. It is unfair to have some states doing this and some not. This will decide elections, I mean all you need is CA to do this and a democrat will never win ever again.

how do you figure?? basically...isn't this the same as saying we're only going to accept the popular vote and disregard the electoral college? i tend to remember a split in 2000 i believe :)

[guidi2009]

The concept of electors was developed by the Founding Fathers as a compromise between having the president elected by the U.S. Congress and election by popular vote, according to the National Archives and Registration Administration. Today, the college consists of 538 electors representing all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The number of electors mirrors each state’s total of U.S. senators and representatives.

Its not entirely based on population but reps, but this system would still honor the original compromise.

[guidi2009]

how do you figure?? basically...isn't this the same as saying we're only going to accept the popular vote and disregard the electoral college? i tend to remember a split in 2000 i believe :)


Not hard to figure, if CA does what Maine is doing now (split votes), this would basically end Democrats in the White house.

[filihok]

Obama would have still won

[dickay]

Not hard to figure, if CA does what Maine is doing now (split votes), this would basically end Democrats in the White house.

and if all states do what Maine is doing...and the electoral vote calculations are fairly accurate...its a popular vote for all intensive purposes is it not? Sure, you won't get as many votes in CA but you will gain them elsewhere. The states with the most electoral votes are if i'm not mistaken for the most part heavily democratic meaning it very well may be easier for Democrats to get elected though I haven't looked at it that closely.

[guidi2009]

and if all states do what Maine is doing...and the electoral vote calculations are fairly accurate...its a popular vote for all intensive purposes is it not? Sure, you won't get as many votes in CA but you will gain them elsewhere. The states with the most electoral votes are if i'm not mistaken for the most part heavily democratic meaning it very well may be easier for Democrats to get elected though I haven't looked at it that closely.

Yes Dickay, but my point is if states go out and do this by them selfs you wont gain ground in other states. Its this we need to avoid with a federal law, which is the point of my post.

[guidi2009]

Obama would have still won

most likely, but you don't know that. Voting turnout would of been way up

[dickay]

Yes Dickay, but my point is if states go out and do this by them selfs you wont gain ground in other states. Its this we need to avoid with a federal law, which is the point of my post.

ahhh, i see now. i agree it should be consistent across the board. i don't see how ridding the electoral process entirely solves any issues however.

i don't see a option for voting to not split electoral votes within states as a whole.

[dickay]

most likely, but you don't know that. Voting turnout would of been way up

hypothetically.

i'd be more for a standardized voter registration and format as an initial step. i think its rediculous that convicts, dead folks, etc. somehow are able to vote. In my town, i must go to the voting booth with proof of citizenship and a license to verify i am who i say i am. why is that not a constant throughout the country??

[guidi2009]

hypothetically.

i'd be more for a standardized voter registration and format as an initial step. i think its rediculous that convicts, dead folks, etc. somehow are able to vote. In my town, i must go to the voting booth with proof of citizenship and a license to verify i am who i say i am. why is that not a constant throughout the country??


Well, I think convicts should be allowed to vote, but thats a discussion for another time. All countries make voting as easy as possible to encourage turnout. I really don't know how serious of a problem this is, i mean how many dead people voted last election?

[dickay]

Well, I think convicts should be allowed to vote, but thats a discussion for another time. All countries make voting as easy as possible to encourage turnout. I really don't know how serious of a problem this is, i mean how many dead people voted last election?

good question.

for certain its exaggerated by those who stand to benefit. both sides play the game but in general republicans argue that democrats are funnelling illegal aliens to vote. there were numerous compliants of ACORN or other groups registering convicts or even the dead in some cases. in most cases those are shot down but there have been legitimate voter fraud instances.

my point is though if its one its too many. why in the world would elected officials not want to ensure that those who vote are in fact US citizens and are in fact who they claim to be? the registration, and identification process...and heck the method of voting should be consistent across the country for federal elections IMO. the only rational against this reasoning IMO is that those who oppose this gain as a result of the loopholes being exploited.

[haveacigar]

There's really no purpose of the electoral college left anyway. All it does is disproportionally place emphasis on swing states. The original purpose of the EC was to provide a safeguard against the popular majority voting in a candidate that the political elites (the States and the electors they send) did not approve of. In our current, 2-party system, none of that would ever be a concern, so the EC just remains as a vestigial relic.

There's simply no reason why, like in 2000, over 50% of the United States should vote for a guy for President, and he not win.

[Alloutwar]

agree with HAC

except minor nitpick: 50% of the population that happened to vote.

We must remember, if only ~78% of the population can vote (due to age, convictions, etc), and only ~30% actually does, than the 14% of the actual populace that vote for a idiot can sway the entire election. Sad.

[guidi2009]

http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/91960.html

here is a great link on some history of the subject.

[BenFink]

Maine and Nebraska, I believe, have a district based electoral college, which to me makes the most sense.
There are many factors why one part of the country would show up in greater numbers than another (weather, for example) where a popular vote would disproportionally give a region that had better turn out better representation.
If you did it by district it would pretty much fix most things. The electoral college would be broken up enough to end it's foolishness. every district, since they are almost the same size, would get the same representation. States like Texas would actually have campaign stops, because some districts would swing, etc.

[guidi2009]

Maine and Nebraska, I believe, have a district based electoral college, which to me makes the most sense.
There are many factors why one part of the country would show up in greater numbers than another (weather, for example) where a popular vote would disproportionally give a region that had better turn out better representation.
If you did it by district it would pretty much fix most things. The electoral college would be broken up enough to end it's foolishness. every district, since they are almost the same size, would get the same representation. States like Texas would actually have campaign stops, because some districts would swing, etc.

Ben you are correct they do use district base system. I tend to dislike this as we all know how much effort politicians put into changing districts to their favor.

What you said makes sense but I'd rather put into effect voter turnout ideas, like a national holiday on election day. End Columbus day and give us the day off to vote. Imagine having a tailgate party on election day, that would be fun. although drunken mis votes would rise. :)

[OregonDuck1989]

Make the election more like American Idol.

And you got yourself voter turnout.

[acetoolguy]

Rememeber the recount mess in Fla. Couldn't this lead to a potential massive recounts in counties across the country?

[guidi2009]

Rememeber the recount mess in Fla. Couldn't this lead to a potential massive recounts in counties across the country?

how would recounts be any different than what we have now?

[acetoolguy]

how would recounts be any different than what we have now?

I'm not sure of this but it seems like you may have something like this...

Right now if a state is 60-40 there would be no recount needed, 100% of delegates go to the winner. However if the loser was fighting for every % he can get he might ask for recounts in every district that was close, and in a national election he/she would do that in every county or city that had a close vote to get the most delegates.

Right now i would like to see the technology used to count the votes improved before any other changes. No point in having a right to vote if they are counted incorrectly.

[dps]

Don't think you could do this simply by passing a Federal law--you'd need a Constitutional Admendment, I'd think.

[haveacigar]

Don't think you could do this simply by passing a Federal law--you'd need a Constitutional Admendment, I'd think.

To make a national law, probably. Otherwise, it'd be violating the 10th amendment, I think.

Each state, however, is free to decide their electoral votes however they see fit.

[haveacigar]

agree with HAC

except minor nitpick: 50% of the population that happened to vote.

We must remember, if only ~78% of the population can vote (due to age, convictions, etc), and only ~30% actually does, than the 14% of the actual populace that vote for a idiot can sway the entire election. Sad.

Yeah but the EC doesn't prevent that 14% of morons from swaying the vote anyway.

I don't think people under 18 are qualified to vote. I don't like that convicts lose their right to vote, but it's not the biggest deal. I don't think allowing them to vote would change much. As far as the people that choose not to vote, too bad, F them. :p

[free2131]

Elect the Dead... (http://www.electthedead.com)

[Lex Logan]

The winner-take-all electoral college system forces presidential candidates to pay attention to smaller states. Splitting the electoral votes, or switching to direct popular election, makes most of the states irrelevant, candiates would focus only on the large population centers.

As for low turnout, so what? When an election is close, or major issues are at stake, voter turnout increases. Democracy is not automatically improved by a higher turnout. A far more serious issue is gerrymandering, which makes Congressional elections meaningless, polarizes our political system and makes democracy a joke.

[haveacigar]

The winner-take-all electoral college system forces presidential candidates to pay attention to smaller states. Splitting the electoral votes, or switching to direct popular election, makes most of the states irrelevant, candiates would focus only on the large population centers.

As for low turnout, so what? When an election is close, or major issues are at stake, voter turnout increases. Democracy is not automatically improved by a higher turnout. A far more serious issue is gerrymandering, which makes Congressional elections meaningless, polarizes our political system and makes democracy a joke.

What smaller states get paid attention to now? Do you really think Republicans are spending a lot of time in New England to get the little Blue States--Or Democrats in the Plains--just to grab a couple 3 and 4 vote states?

Pretty much every late political campaign involves the midwest swing states (PA, OH, MI) and Florida to a disproportionate amount. Any expansion of that plan would be better than the current system.

[oriole^]

The winner-take-all electoral college system forces presidential candidates to pay attention to smaller states. Splitting the electoral votes, or switching to direct popular election, makes most of the states irrelevant, candiates would focus only on the large population centers.

As for low turnout, so what? When an election is close, or major issues are at stake, voter turnout increases. Democracy is not automatically improved by a higher turnout. A far more serious issue is gerrymandering, which makes Congressional elections meaningless, polarizes our political system and makes democracy a joke.

Most of the states now are already irrelevant. The difference is that it would be the small states, not the large ones (NY, CA, TX...) and frankly, that just makes more sense. If you believe in one person, one vote, then that's just going to be how it is. Besides, the small states already have a disproportionately large say in one branch of our government - namely, Congress. The House is off by about 5% with respect to population, and the Senate is much, much worse - one citizen of Wyoming has the same representation in the Senate as 72 Californians.

[dps]

To make a national law, probably. Otherwise, it'd be violating the 10th amendment, I think.

Each state, however, is free to decide their electoral votes however they see fit.

Problem wouldn't be the 10th Amendment, but Section 1 of Article 2 of the Constitution, as modified by the 12 Amendment.



Most of the states now are already irrelevant. The difference is that it would be the small states, not the large ones (NY, CA, TX...) and frankly, that just makes more sense.

Actually, the biggest thing that determines the importance of a given state under the current system is how close the vote in that state is expected to be. It's not clear exactly how candidates would change their campaign stategies in a direct popular vote.

[haveacigar]

Problem wouldn't be the 10th Amendment, but Section 1 of Article 2 of the Constitution, as modified by the 12 Amendment.




Actually, the biggest thing that determines the importance of a given state under the current system is how close the vote in that state is expected to be. It's not clear exactly how candidates would change their campaign stategies in a direct popular vote.

I don't know if Article 2, section 1 really specifies how the electors have to be sent. It just says that you use the electors to elect the president. The 10th Amendment would be problematic because you're taking what should be a state issue (how to determine their electors) and federalizing it. I'm not in law school yet, though, so I could certainly be wrong.

[oriole^]

Actually, the biggest thing that determines the importance of a given state under the current system is how close the vote in that state is expected to be. It's not clear exactly how candidates would change their campaign stategies in a direct popular vote.

Point taken; my assumption would be that they would campaign in the areas of greatest concentration of people.