Abolition of the electoral college

[greenforest32]

Hard to predict. I think it will depend on there being a certain political mood in the country (kind of like the era of EPA and all that environmental regulation). I don't think it will be gone by 2020 but I wouldn't be surprised to see the national popular vote compact adopted before the EC rightfully kicks the bucket.

Also this thread is weird. Where is the thread starter's first post?

[dead0man]

Never

[Duke David]

Also this thread is weird. Where is the thread starter's first post?

LOL

I'm asking that question myself.
The moderators seem to leave no doubt that they hate me.

[Duke David]

Never

Tiny states like Nebraska benefit from the disproportional allocation of the electoral votes, of course...

[I left.]

Never

Depends really. You'd need another 2000-like case for it to be possible. And even then it might not happen.

Unlikely in my lifetime, I'd say.

[dead0man]

Never

Tiny states like Nebraska benefit from the disproportional allocation of the electoral votes, of course...

And we've past laws to take away that advantage, if the big states did the same this would cease to be an issue.  But they don't.  Why?  Because it would, ironically, make them less important in Presidential elections.

[greenforest32]

Never

Tiny states like Nebraska benefit from the disproportional allocation of the electoral votes, of course...

And we've past laws to take away that advantage, if the big states did the same this would cease to be an issue.  But they don't.  Why?  Because it would, ironically, make them less important in Presidential elections.

Eh? The real benefitters (sp?) of the electoral college are the swing states. The big states should get more attention as they have more people, but since the Electoral College elects the president rather than the popular vote candidates spend most of their time in swing states.

How do you think Republicans in California or Democrats in Texas feel? You think they approve of the electoral college? Nope.

[dead0man]

Of course.  But my point still stands.  Nebraska (and Maine) have made changes to take away much of the (marginal) advantage small states have.  The bigger states could make these changes too, but they don't. 

But yes, the real "winners" under the electoral college system are the mid sized swing states.

[Duke David]

Of course.  But my point still stands.  Nebraska (and Maine) have made changes to take away much of the (marginal) advantage small states have.  The bigger states could make these changes too, but they don't. 

But yes, the real "winners" under the electoral college system are the mid sized swing states.

The reason Nebraska splits its electoral votes is its function as a stronghold.

Its government wanted both the GOP and the Dems to campaign in Nebraska.

[Communists For McCain]

Let's be real honest people:

Do you really think this nation would be around long enough to see such reform happen?

[President Marokai]

I wish, as I've sort of come around on this issue lately. But I seriously doubt it will happen in my lifetime, at least.

[Senator Napoleon]

I hate this conversation. The electoral college is the least of ours worries. We have fptp, gerrymandering, and awful campaign finance laws and we choose to focus on this?

[Fritz]

If the interstate compact rendering the EC irrelevant ever becomes enacted, the country might- maybe, someday- go ahead and make it official.

[greenforest32]

I hate this conversation. The electoral college is the least of ours worries. We have fptp, gerrymandering, and awful campaign finance laws and we choose to focus on this?

It's probably because it's the easiest to fix. Doesn't mean we can't focus on all those at once.

[Senator Napoleon]

I hate this conversation. The electoral college is the least of ours worries. We have fptp, gerrymandering, and awful campaign finance laws and we choose to focus on this?

It's probably because it's the easiest to fix. Doesn't mean we can't focus on all those at once.

It is easy to fix if it isn't a real problem...I think bitterness about 2000 is way overstated and that the EC is an easy targets because it feels undemocratic. It is also a fix that is far less likely to change anything than the reforms I mentioned would.

[greenforest32]

I hate this conversation. The electoral college is the least of ours worries. We have fptp, gerrymandering, and awful campaign finance laws and we choose to focus on this?

It's probably because it's the easiest to fix. Doesn't mean we can't focus on all those at once.

It is easy to fix if it isn't a real problem...I think bitterness about 2000 is way overstated and that the EC is an easy targets because it feels undemocratic. It is also a fix that is far less likely to change anything than the reforms I mentioned would.

I am not disputing that. I'd like to change them all. We haven't had any real electoral reform in decades.

And the electoral college did enable the Supreme Court to stop the Florida recount and hand Bush the Presidency in 2000. Certainly we could have done things better before that point (a better campaign and called for recounts right away), but it was still an option for them to use and they did.

[Vasall des Midas]

Let's be real honest people:

Do you really think this nation would be around long enough to see such reform happen?

The Electoral College would not survive if America does not.

[Torie]

One little concern I have is this sort of LSD-like flashback, where Bush v Gore involves every precinct across the Fruited Plain.  Just a thought.

[I left.]

One little concern I have is this sort of LSD-like flashback, where Bush v Gore involves every precinct across the Fruited Plain.  Just a thought.

The probability of such an event is inflated by any random swing state being able to change the overall outcome.

Without the EC...2000 would have been no problem. Of course...if it is very close nationally, then we're in deep trouble. And we'd need nationwide election standards, of course.

[Communists For McCain]

Let's be real honest people:

Do you really think this nation would be around long enough to see such reform happen?

The Electoral College would not survive if America does not.

It isn't called reform if everybody is dead Lewis.

Unless you're a Nazi Fascist.
[/Godwin]

[True Federalist]

Also this thread is weird. Where is the thread starter's first post?

LOL

I'm asking that question myself.
The moderators seem to leave no doubt that they hate me.

Don't ask me how it happened.  But since I try to meet expectations unless I have a reason not to, I'll be certain to hate you from now on.

[lowtech redneck]

Never, thank goodness; its advantagous to a majority of states.

We're still a federal Republic, guys...deal.

[ModerateCoward]

I hate this conversation. The electoral college is the least of ours worries. We have fptp, gerrymandering, and awful campaign finance laws and we choose to focus on this?

I would like to see how a system other than fptp would work with electoral college in-tact.  That would be the joke of all jokes.

[FloridaRepublican]

I hope it NEVER gets abolished. I love it.

[True Federalist]

I hate this conversation. The electoral college is the least of ours worries. We have fptp, gerrymandering, and awful campaign finance laws and we choose to focus on this?

I would like to see how a system other than fptp would work with electoral college in-tact.  That would be the joke of all jokes.

Easy.  If all 50 States allocated their electoral votes proportionately, then the election would fairly often go the House to decide, which is what the Founders, who did not anticipate the rise of national political parties, thought would likely be the case in most elections after Washington.

Assuming that votes were unchanged under such a system, the most recent one to go to the House would probably be 1992. I worked out 1996 for one system of PR by State, thinking it would be the election, but I got:
Clinton   279
Dole       233
Perot       26

However since the wasted vote syndrome is negated to some extent, I think under such a system we'd see more third party voting and increased voting in highly partisan places.

Note that third parties suffer by the use of PR by state instead of nationwide.  Using the same system as I used above, but allocating all 538 EV as a single PR district, I got:

Clinton   269 (-10)
Dole       223 (-10)
Perot       46 (+20)

Which would not only have almost doubled Perot's EV count, it would have sent the election into the House.