Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

and from Youngstown State University!

This actually is a good article that shows outlines the difficulty (and almost absurdity) of revamping the election process with the most plausible choice. Personally, I don't think doing away with the EC and going strictly by Popular Vote is wise.


http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/22/s ... hpt=po_bn1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is what happened in 2000, and in the eyes of NPV proponents it was not a rare event. The NPV website states that the present system has a "failure rate of 1 in 14." That ratio is arrived at by dividing the 55 elections held between 1789 and 2004 by the four "wrong-winner" elections that occurred in 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000.

But in 1824, six states chose their electors through their state legislatures and did not conduct a popular vote. Therefore, 1824 was not really a "wrong-winner" election, since there was no uniform national popular vote taken in that year by which to arrive at a "right winner." If 1824 is excluded, a wrong-winner election is likely to happen only once every 74 years

Under NPV, the necessary plurality could be confined to a few states, or a single region of the country. Multiple regional or even favorite-son candidacies would be encouraged, and each new candidacy would increase the likelihood of one of them receiving a majority of the electoral votes (courtesy of the NPV compact) while capturing a very low percentage of the overall vote. If there were four major candidates in the race, victory could be achieved with just over 25% of the popular vote.

What are your thoughts?

No and hell no to abolishing the EC. People complain about politicians pandering to "swing states" that tend to decide the elections, but it will be worse when you have a popular vote and more than half of the US population is living in nine states.

I don't see any reason to change it. The common thread in the 1876, 1888, and 2000 elections is that they were contested between two very mediocre candidates all three times. Elections that end up that close between candidates that average or below average shouldn't be reasons to change the system, IMO. No system is going to save us from that outcome. The system works well enough most of the time, and a straight popular election could always end up teetering to a very regional bias if demographics skewed that way (i.e. what happens if the Mormons end up being a huge demographic in 50 years? Current system limits the impact since Utah's just one state. Let it be a straight popular election and the reach becomes much more significant - not that I have anything against Mormons, I have a friend who is Mormon. ). I wouldn't change the entire system just because we had trouble deciding between two less than stellar choices in Bush/Gore.

Pwns and GF, you two make the best arguments AGAINST thier statement. I too think the EC is a good system, although a flaw can be found inanything, it helps keep all the states important. What would be the point if the same 9 states elected the leader every 4 yearss?

Didn't read the article... but, the electoral college isn't going to be changed in favor of straight popular vote.

You'd have to get legislators from smaller states on board with ceding their states' power to larger states... as well as the citizens of those smaller states. Not gonna happen.

Skjellyfetti wrote:Didn't read the article... but, the electoral college isn't going to be changed in favor of straight popular vote.

You'd have to get legislators from smaller states on board with ceding their states' power to larger states... as well as the citizens of those smaller states. Not gonna happen.

This is absolutely correct. Plus why should we change it just because Algore was such a moron he couldn't even carry his own home state?

HI54UNI wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:Didn't read the article... but, the electoral college isn't going to be changed in favor of straight popular vote.

You'd have to get legislators from smaller states on board with ceding their states' power to larger states... as well as the citizens of those smaller states. Not gonna happen.

This is absolutely correct. Plus why should we change it just because Algore was such a moron he couldn't even carry his own home state?

I thought Gore won Wash DC? No?

HI54UNI wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:Didn't read the article... but, the electoral college isn't going to be changed in favor of straight popular vote.

You'd have to get legislators from smaller states on board with ceding their states' power to larger states... as well as the citizens of those smaller states. Not gonna happen.

This is absolutely correct. Plus why should we change it just because Algore was such a moron he couldn't even carry his own home state?

I posed this question in 2001 to my Government class in High School.

"If you had a large number of people, unable to read a simple election form, do you want to be associated with them?"

That butterfly ballot wasn't difficult to understand. I think the funniest thing was when Gore suggested that the reviewers should guess if the voter intended for Gore instead of Robertson. He wanted them to read peoples minds?

I think direct democracies are inherently dangerous. While people always like to show off surveys that the majority of Americans approve of this and disapprove of that, the majority isn't always right. It makes for a less efficient form of government, but it does safegaurd people (especially minorities) from an ideology the majority might take up because of the "heat of the moment."

Regardless of the 2000 result - I'd prefer a national popular vote it makes a lot more sense.

From a campaign managers perspective - we like the EC because it's generally thought to be cheaper to run races in targeted states to win. The fallacious argument made by NPV supporters is that somehow this change will mean candidates will appear in Billings, MT or Minot, ND or Fayetteville, AR... won't happen. Switching to an NPV would mean candidates would do something like concert tours going from big city to big city - raising money and having a huge rally dominating the media for a day or two and moving on... combine that with national ad buys bigger than we've ever seen - and some targeting by both sides of places we currently ignore to mine votes out of those places - there wouldn't be too much change between the way we do it now.

Jelly's right about one thing though - there is NO WAY the smaller states will give up their disproportionate advantage (no matter how unconstitutional it is).

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:Regardless of the 2000 result - I'd prefer a national popular vote it makes a lot more sense.

From a campaign managers perspective - we like the EC because it's generally thought to be cheaper to run races in targeted states to win. The fallacious argument made by NPV supporters is that somehow this change will mean candidates will appear in Billings, MT or Minot, ND or Fayetteville, AR... won't happen. Switching to an NPV would mean candidates would do something like concert tours going from big city to big city - raising money and having a huge rally dominating the media for a day or two and moving on... combine that with national ad buys bigger than we've ever seen - and some targeting by both sides of places we currently ignore to mine votes out of those places - there wouldn't be too much change between the way we do it now.

Jelly's right about one thing though - there is NO WAY the smaller states will give up their disproportionate advantage (no matter how unconstitutional it is).

Uh, how can it be unconstitutional if it's in the Constitution?

NPV is a horrible idea. It is an attempt to make an end-run around the Constitution in the name of having a "feel-good" attitude among the states adopting it that they've supported the winner.

Ivytalk wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:Regardless of the 2000 result - I'd prefer a national popular vote it makes a lot more sense.

From a campaign managers perspective - we like the EC because it's generally thought to be cheaper to run races in targeted states to win. The fallacious argument made by NPV supporters is that somehow this change will mean candidates will appear in Billings, MT or Minot, ND or Fayetteville, AR... won't happen. Switching to an NPV would mean candidates would do something like concert tours going from big city to big city - raising money and having a huge rally dominating the media for a day or two and moving on... combine that with national ad buys bigger than we've ever seen - and some targeting by both sides of places we currently ignore to mine votes out of those places - there wouldn't be too much change between the way we do it now.

Jelly's right about one thing though - there is NO WAY the smaller states will give up their disproportionate advantage (no matter how unconstitutional it is).

Uh, how can it be unconstitutional if it's in the Constitution?

Oh good, i'm not the only one that thought that.

I think if you made it by popular vote, the focus would fall more on the larger states. Rhode Island, Delaware(for example) could argue that they wouldn't have a say.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:Regardless of the 2000 result - I'd prefer a national popular vote it makes a lot more sense.

From a campaign managers perspective - we like the EC because it's generally thought to be cheaper to run races in targeted states to win. The fallacious argument made by NPV supporters is that somehow this change will mean candidates will appear in Billings, MT or Minot, ND or Fayetteville, AR... won't happen. Switching to an NPV would mean candidates would do something like concert tours going from big city to big city - raising money and having a huge rally dominating the media for a day or two and moving on... combine that with national ad buys bigger than we've ever seen - and some targeting by both sides of places we currently ignore to mine votes out of those places - there wouldn't be too much change between the way we do it now.

Jelly's right about one thing though - there is NO WAY the smaller states will give up their disproportionate advantage (no matter how unconstitutional it is).

Obama made a number of stops in MT.

Grizalltheway wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:Regardless of the 2000 result - I'd prefer a national popular vote it makes a lot more sense.

From a campaign managers perspective - we like the EC because it's generally thought to be cheaper to run races in targeted states to win. The fallacious argument made by NPV supporters is that somehow this change will mean candidates will appear in Billings, MT or Minot, ND or Fayetteville, AR... won't happen. Switching to an NPV would mean candidates would do something like concert tours going from big city to big city - raising money and having a huge rally dominating the media for a day or two and moving on... combine that with national ad buys bigger than we've ever seen - and some targeting by both sides of places we currently ignore to mine votes out of those places - there wouldn't be too much change between the way we do it now.

Jelly's right about one thing though - there is NO WAY the smaller states will give up their disproportionate advantage (no matter how unconstitutional it is).

Obama made a number of stops in MT.

"Our campaign was not hatched in the halls of Washington. It began in the backyards of Des Moines and the living rooms of Concord and on the front porches of Charleston

- B.O.s acceptance Speech

I would like to stay relevant. You know, us crazy Carolinians like to have our say.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote: - there is NO WAY the smaller states will give up their disproportionate advantage (no matter how unconstitutional it is).

Seriously, that has to be one of the funniest misquotes I've heard on here in some time. Classic stuff, man!

yeah - that's a misquote...

i was writing two different things at once... and ended up making a mess of it

The point I was attempting to make - and failing at - was that the EC violates the principle of "one man, one vote" by giving additional weight to the votes of those living in small states. A vote for President in North Dakota or Vermont has a hell of a lot more weight than a vote in California or Texas. (even the smallest states get 3 EV's - even if they only have 400,000 people)

Ivytalk wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:Regardless of the 2000 result - I'd prefer a national popular vote it makes a lot more sense.

From a campaign managers perspective - we like the EC because it's generally thought to be cheaper to run races in targeted states to win. The fallacious argument made by NPV supporters is that somehow this change will mean candidates will appear in Billings, MT or Minot, ND or Fayetteville, AR... won't happen. Switching to an NPV would mean candidates would do something like concert tours going from big city to big city - raising money and having a huge rally dominating the media for a day or two and moving on... combine that with national ad buys bigger than we've ever seen - and some targeting by both sides of places we currently ignore to mine votes out of those places - there wouldn't be too much change between the way we do it now.

Jelly's right about one thing though - there is NO WAY the smaller states will give up their disproportionate advantage (no matter how unconstitutional it is).

Uh, how can it be unconstitutional if it's in the Constitution?

NPV is a horrible idea. It is an attempt to make an end-run around the Constitution in the name of having a "feel-good" attitude among the states adopting it that they've supported the winner.

I don't think it's an "end-run"... it's a reform movement.

Grizalltheway wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:Regardless of the 2000 result - I'd prefer a national popular vote it makes a lot more sense.

From a campaign managers perspective - we like the EC because it's generally thought to be cheaper to run races in targeted states to win. The fallacious argument made by NPV supporters is that somehow this change will mean candidates will appear in Billings, MT or Minot, ND or Fayetteville, AR... won't happen. Switching to an NPV would mean candidates would do something like concert tours going from big city to big city - raising money and having a huge rally dominating the media for a day or two and moving on... combine that with national ad buys bigger than we've ever seen - and some targeting by both sides of places we currently ignore to mine votes out of those places - there wouldn't be too much change between the way we do it now.

Jelly's right about one thing though - there is NO WAY the smaller states will give up their disproportionate advantage (no matter how unconstitutional it is).

Obama made a number of stops in MT.

In fact, he was in Butte for 4th of July in '08. My daughter was there. She threw eggs at him.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:The point I was attempting to make - and failing at - was that the EC violates the principle of "one man, one vote" by giving additional weight to the votes of those living in small states. A vote for President in North Dakota or Vermont has a hell of a lot more weight than a vote in California or Texas. (even the smallest states get 3 EV's - even if they only have 400,000 people)

And I have no problem with violating that principle for exactly the reasons that the violation was built intentionally into the Constitution in the first place, i.e. to ensure that even the small states get to be heard in the process. You take that out, and sure, one vote in NYC or Texas or California counts the same as a vote in Idaho, but at the end of the day, no one's going to care enough to cater for that one vote in Idaho since the perspective from which that voter places his/her vote will be entirely different than the vote in NYC or Texas or California. If you can only spend so much time and money in an election, you're going to do it where it matters the most and a direct election means you are going to cater to the population centers.

To some extent, even with the small states getting more power at the ballot box today, they are already overlooked. Again, only so much time and so much money to chase votes. The irony is, your position of going to a direct election would just skew that even more than it is today, even while saying you're trying to aim for one man one vote. It's a catchy slogan, but one that ignores the reality on the ground - direct elections would minimize the vote of a small stater even more than it is today. Like I said, it ain't broke, so no reason to change it.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Obama made a number of stops in MT.

In fact, he was in Butte for 4th of July in '08. My daughter was there. She threw eggs at him.

Lies! We know she is the house liberal.