The electoral college is FUCKED and needs to go the way of the dodo bird (but it was fine in 2000).
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:
make representation proportional for each state, so college results more accurately represent the popular vote
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
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.
It doesn't allow for third party candidates to be anything more than spoilers, thus reinforcing the two party grip on american politics.
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.
That would still be true.
What do you have against the States?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I suppose it depends on what is meant by make representation proportional for each state. If it means splitting electors, ...
That is what Maine and Nebraska do.
... there is still the problem that states with few citizens get too many electors.
Why is that a problem? This is due to giving states representation, as intended by the framers of the constitution, so that they are marginalized by the tyranny of the majority.
... I also believe in limits to liberty only in those cases where it is in the best interests of the majority of the population. Another caveat that I make is this: Liberty is absolutely worthless in the hands of an immoral population. ...
Just an observation: morality is defined by the population in general terms and by individuals in specific terms. Ergo, there is no such thing as an "immoral population" -- rather there is a population that behaves according to the population morals, whether those coincide with your personal morals or not.
While #1 is comparable to your definition, I would also include #2 and #3, especially where this involves a subset of a population wanting to impose conditions of specific behavior/s in a way that would limit choice for others of different beliefs.
So freedom is liberty and liberty is freedom ... both involve "exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc." and "the power to determine action without restraint."
Problem is that humans are social animals, and as such there are social limits on behavior that is exempted from social control for the benefit of the society -- this is what we call morals so that we don't need to deal with the cognitive dissonance of limited liberty and freedom (morals are an internal control that everyone abides by ... in a perfect world).
Not so much democrat vs republican, but sense vs ignorant nonsense
The forces of progressive politics (socialized medicine, medicare and social security) won out over the forces of reactionary regressive politics (further deregulations for corporations, more failed economics, and repressive regulations for people).
There are also fewer tea party ignorant bigots in government, so not only was the presidential race a victory for society over corporations, but a more reasonable congress is a victory over ignorance based policies.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
(1)