Summations Only

That's what I am seeing at several places.The most outspoken Republicans seem to know exactly what they must do:

1. they must purge the party of RINOs;
2. they must never again nominate someone who has been a moderate governor;
3. they must double down on the crazy.

Obviously the wording of the last of those is not what they would use.I'm thinking that onifre must be cheering all the way to the stand up comic circuit.

The election results if only white males had the vote.

Hi hooah212002 This requires a constitutional amendment, and I project that it will never occur.A more reasonable change would be to update the electoral college and use it to improve our election system:

1. make representation proportional for each state, so college results more accurately represent the popular vote
2. make it illegal to release voting results until the electoral college -- taking the "drama" out of election night and moving it to electoral college day
3. make it a rule that any state that whenever there is less difference between the top two candidates than the total of all other votes - either not counted or for other candidates - automatically has a second vote between just the top contenders

This ensures that (a) everyone's vote counts, (b) close contests are properly counted (imagine the results if this had been in effect for Bus v Gore) and (c) third parties can grow to the point of being viable contenders.Enjoy.

What is wrong with the system as it is? It puts the power to choose President into the hands of each individual state rather than into the hands of the people as a whole.Isn't that how all of our elections work? I didn't get to decide who California sent to D.C. as one of their senators. The people of California decided as a state who they wanted in their senate chair. Similarly, I didn't get to decide who California supported for President; the people of California decided as a state who they supported for President.It's state-based, like every other election for Federal office in the country.What do you have against the States?

Wouldn't this require a Constitutional amendment? The formula for apportioning the electoral college votes is part of the constitution. The formula is electoral votes = senators + house reps.

So you are okay with the fact that everyone in Rhode Island's vote for president counts more than yours? Why should that be the case? RI senator is not your senator, but you share a president.

No. The Constitution says, Emphasis added.Nothing requires the states to use any particular method to determine how to decide who the electors shall be. And in fact, two states already apportion electors now, Maine and Nebraska.

Hi Jon, It doesn't allow for third party candidates to be anything more than spoilers, thus reinforcing the two party grip on american politics. That would still be true. Nothing. What I would like to see is more fair distribution of electoral college members (the proportional representation as used by Maine and Nebraska:

quote:

---

United States Electoral College - Wikipedia
Presidential electors are selected on a state-by-state basis, as determined by the laws of each state. Generally (with Maine and Nebraska being the exceptions), each state appoints its electors on a winner-take-all basis, based on the statewide popular vote on Election Day.

---

Now look at what the constitution originally says.

quote:

---

http://congressionalconstitutioncaucus-garr.../...nstitution

​

Article II

​

Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

​

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives ...

​

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; ...

---

The constitution does not say anything about how the electors are appointer, it does not require either proportional representation nor winner take all.So the only differences I advocate are (1) making all states proportional and (2) not releasing vote counts\results until the electoral college meets.Enjoy.

I am okay with the fact that each State chooses as a single entity which presidential candidate it wants in the White House and that the weight of that choice is a factor of the state's population.Can you tell me for which other Federal offices the American people as a whole vote directly rather than on a state-by-state basis? Why shouldn't it? Per person, Rhode Island also has more U.S. representatives than Minnesota.The Electoral College is perhaps unnecessary, but it's not as bad as you make it out to be. It is pretty much in line with how the rest of the system worksthat is, each person's vote only sort of kind of counts the same as everyone else's vote.Jon

They're terrible and useless and should be disbanded. There's a legitimate need for local government and a legitimate need for national government. There's no rational purpose for having intermediate pseudo-state government in between.Let them persist as historical curiosities, boundaries on a map. But state legislatures should not be allowed to make law. Your vote shouldn't matter more or less based on the population of your state, or whether you live in a city or a farm.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Hi NoNukes See Message 143. This would not be changed, what would change is going from winner-take-all to a proportional systems such as what is used in Maine and Nebraska.You still would need 272 votes to win, but large states with win-all representation would not be more "important" to winning.Curiously, there is also no provision that electors, once chosen, have to cast votes for the people they were picked to represent -- they could conceivably change the outcome by casting votes for someone else. This would normally create a great ruckus and probably some lawsuits, however consider an elector that represents a third party changing to choose the "lesser if two evils (in their opinion)" to prevent\curtail the winning of a lesser desirable candidate: this would enhance to status of third (or fourth) parties without incurring the spoiler effect.The original intent, unless I am badly mistaken from my reading, was that discussions would occur among the electors to arrive at their making their best choice among the candidates to represent their constituents votes -- whether it was the person voted for or someone of similar politics.Enjoy.

Yes, I know, essentially bare links.http://discovermagazine.com/2004/sep/math-against-tyranny
From the Archive: Math Against TyrannyThis is a reissue of a 1996 article - I probably have the paper version stored away somewhere.Also: Page not found | Department of Psychology
The Electoral College: Bulwark Against FraudMoose

They do not need disbanded. They worry about issues of state, that the Federal government is not equipped to manage. For that reason states abuse the ignorance of the system that does not enforce Federal Liberty rights.Law is the problem, not the lawmakers. Lawmakers have too much freedom in penning laws. The guidelines of federal law are not taken seriously, mostly because of a lack of definition. (i.e. Life, Liberty, and pursuit of happiness.)I believe the voting system is very flawed. From American Idol type shows, many different voting methods were tried to get a more accurate consensus of what the voter really wanted. Mathematically, it would seem we already have a better method; the issue would be passing it into law.

State governments handle matters not suitable to be handled by local or Federal government.

There are no such matters. States are simultaneously too large (they encompass too many different types of land and community) and not large enough (they don't encompass all instances of a land or community type.) Anything relevant to a single geographic area is appropriate for the local government. Anything relevant to multiple communities as a whole is appropriate for the national government, because it's a problem faced by all communities.