Presidential Election Reform

[HuskyCaucasian]

This warrants a bi-partisan thread instead of posting it in a Dem or Rep thread.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/27/nel...ting/index.html

 

Senator calls for sweeping election overhaul

Sen. Bill Nelson on Thursday proposed an overhaul of U.S. presidential election laws, saying the dispute over delegates in Florida and Michigan has exposed a flawed nominating system.

 

In a speech on the floor of the Florida state Senate Thursday, Nelson said he formally will introduce legislation that will attempt to fix many of the problems exposed by this cycle's round of presidential primaries, adding that the "time for reform is now."

 

Specifically, Nelson said he will propose six rotating interregional primaries that "will give large and small states a fair say in the nomination process."

 

Nelson also formally will seek to award the presidency based on the popular vote instead the Electoral College -- a move that would require a stand-alone bill since it would require an amendment to the Constitution.

 

Let the debate begin.

[southsider2k5]

As long as the superdelegate is still around, you can't really say the primaries would be fair. The chance of maniuplation is still there.

[WilliamTell]

Being from Iowa I'd hate to see rotating primaries but I can see why every other state, other than New Hampshire would want it to rotate. But hey, most people are looking for self interests anyways.

 

As for the Electoral College, it makes sense to have it be gone. I just worry that the small states wouldn't be nearly as represented. Plus I think the Electoral College makes things more interesting during on election night.

[Balta1701]

Um, since the parties and individual states themselves set the rules for when states are going to be having primaries and how delegates are going to be divided up, how exactly does proposing this at the national level do anything?

[whitesoxfan101]

The electoral college issue is nothing but hypocrisy based on the results of the most recent election. Case in point: All the democrats cried and whined over the electoral college since it kept the popular vote winner Al Gore out of office in 2000, but then in 2004 they whined about Ohio voter fraud costing John Kerry the electoral college, even though he lost the popular vote by 3 million. Double talk at it's finest. As for primaries, I agree with what I think Balta is saying, which is this is a state political party issue on both sides, so I'm not sure how a national proposal does anything.

Edited March 27, 2008 by whitesoxfan101

[NorthSideSox72]

I am not sure about the law on this, but its possible that legislation at the national level may override the states. Even if not, the national parties could find a way to force the states' hand. Should be interesting. Anything to make the primary system more dynamic and involve more states over time, and anything to get away from the electoral college for presidential voting, are good things.

 

[Balta1701]

I am not sure about the law on this, but its possible that legislation at the national level may override the states. Even if not, the national parties could find a way to force the states' hand. Should be interesting. Anything to make the primary system more dynamic and involve more states over time, and anything to get away from the electoral college for presidential voting, are good things.

I'm pretty sure that the Electoral college can only be reformed by constitutional amendment.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm pretty sure that the Electoral college can only be reformed by constitutional amendment.

That part, yes. I was referring to legislation regarding the primaries. Sorry. I just sort of threw in the electoral college as a similar issue.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

For those who are curious, here is a PDF of every state with it's population (via Wikipedia), electoral votes, and People per Electoral Vote.

 

 

I am very conflicted on the electoral college. I understand that it gives more "power" to smaller states, but at the same time is it REALLY democratic to have 209,000 people count for one vote in Alaska while it takes 663,000 in California? A vote is a vote, no matter where it's from.

 

To date: I stand conflicted.

Edited March 27, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[jasonxctf]

in case anyone was wondering, in the winner take all electoral college system in the 2004 presidential election

 

 

GWB got 1 electoral college vote for every 454,629 votes cast in the states he won.

JK got 1 electoral college vote for every 459,171 votes cast in the states he won.

[YASNY]

Regarding the primaries, the federal government sticks it's nose where it doesn't belong too much as it is. The states should be able to maintain the right to choose their delegates as they see fit.

 

Regarding the electoral college: Just leave the constitution alone. There is too much risk involved in letting these leeches anywhere near it.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I have to revive this thread based on this:

I just heard on the radio that Illinois just passed a law that would automatically award its electoral votes to the winner of the NATIONAL popular vote. This law will only take effect IF dozens of other states pass similar legislation. Looks like the movement away from the electoral college might be gaining some momentum.

 

It's also a nice end around of getting a constitutional amendment.

 

Here's the info...

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/states.php?s=IL

SPRINGFIELD, April 7, 2008 – Governor Rod R. Blagojevich today signed the National Popular Vote bill, making Illinois the third state to enact the legislation. The bill had previously passed both the Illinois Senate and House of Representatives. Governor Blagojevich said:

"This nation is built on the principle 'for the people, by the people.' By signing this law, we in Illinois are making it clear that we believe every voter has an equal voice in electing our nation's leaders. As a U.S. Congressman, I co-sponsored a House Joint Resolution to abolish the Electoral College and to provide for the direct election of the President and Vice President. I'm proud Illinois is leading the way by joining this landmark compact that will help shape our Democracy in to future."

 

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/explanation.php

The National Popular Vote bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill is enacted in a group of states possessing 270 or more electoral votes, all of the electoral votes from those states would be awarded, as a bloc, to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Edited April 7, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[HuskyCaucasian]

Some new information...

 

Since this post was started on March 27th, the National Popular Vote bill was enacted into law in Hawaii and the bill has passed Rhode Island's House and Senate, the Vermont's House (previously passed by the Senate), and California's Assembly (it previously passed the Senate in 2007).

 

If it gets signed by the governors in those 3 states, it iwll make 7 states total who have signed onto the bill and 112 electoral votes towards the needed 270. That's 41.45%.

 

And today, Dukakis is calling for an end to Electoral College:

“I think it is high time we got rid of the Electoral College and elected our presidents the way we elect every other elected official in the country - by a vote of the people,” Dukakis wrote in a letter e-mailed to state lawmakers yesterday. “The overwhelming majority of the American people do, too.”

 

[Balance]

I would certainly support abolishing the electoral college. It's an unneeded and undemocratic relic.

[Rex Kickass]

If we abolish the Electoral College, we'll need to establish a federal set of rules that offer a universal set of guidelines for voting and voting eligibility. In my opinion, you can't have one without the other.

 

We elect nationally through fifty statewide elections.

[southsider2k5]

If we abolish the Electoral College, we'll need to establish a federal set of rules that offer a universal set of guidelines for voting and voting eligibility. In my opinion, you can't have one without the other.

 

We elect nationally through fifty statewide elections.

 

Its a very good point, and one that bears debating. I really do believe that the original intent was for the states to maintain much more identity than they have in 21st century America. The federal government has progressed way past what was originally intended, and I think changing the election process gets into the federalization of elections, when it was clearly intended to be a state based process, even when the electoral college was institituded. There was supposed to be some protection of the smalls states, against the big states, just like there was in the Great Compromise. The other thing I see quickly happening if we did something like this is impinging on the rights of the parties, by standardizing the way that they pick their candidates.

[bmags]

So much was thought about protecting the small states rights. Perhaps because they were safeguarded, but in history I just haven't seen much of an issue b/w big vs. states. Theres been north vs. south, east v. west, most of the problems have been regional, not due to population.

[vandy125]

As a citizen in a small state, I really dislike the idea of getting rid of the Electoral College. If that happens nobody will care about what is needed on our farms and away from the cities. Those all become fly over areas that the candidates will not care about.

[Rex Kickass]

As a citizen in a small state, I really dislike the idea of getting rid of the Electoral College. If that happens nobody will care about what is needed on our farms and away from the cities. Those all become fly over areas that the candidates will not care about.

 

They pretty much are after the primaries anyway.

[bmags]

As a citizen in a small state, I really dislike the idea of getting rid of the Electoral College. If that happens nobody will care about what is needed on our farms and away from the cities. Those all become fly over areas that the candidates will not care about.

 

I disagree.

[NorthSideSox72]

As a citizen in a small state, I really dislike the idea of getting rid of the Electoral College. If that happens nobody will care about what is needed on our farms and away from the cities. Those all become fly over areas that the candidates will not care about.

Actually, I'd suggest the opposite will happen. If you are in a small state, probably, they don't bother anyway. Unless its a "swing" state - then it doesn't matter if its big or small, they'll matter.

 

But that's the whole problem with it. The electoral college artificially disenfranchises 80% of the electorate who don't live in "swing" states. If you have a truly national vote, then every vote counts the same.

 

[bmags]

and, you still will have your U.S. representatives and equal representation in the Senate.

[vandy125]

Actually, I'd suggest the opposite will happen. If you are in a small state, probably, they don't bother anyway. Unless its a "swing" state - then it doesn't matter if its big or small, they'll matter.

 

But that's the whole problem with it. The electoral college artificially disenfranchises 80% of the electorate who don't live in "swing" states. If you have a truly national vote, then every vote counts the same.

 

I actually disagree with this. JMHO, but I think that it levels out the bumps so that states like California don't get such a huge piece of the pie. They get a big piece now, but it would be even larger without the electoral college. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I think that our elections would all get decided by the people who live on the coasts. You could forget about the whole Midwest. I wouldn't think of my vote as counting for much of anything.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Actually, I'd suggest the opposite will happen. If you are in a small state, probably, they don't bother anyway. Unless its a "swing" state - then it doesn't matter if its big or small, they'll matter.

 

But that's the whole problem with it. The electoral college artificially disenfranchises 80% of the electorate who don't live in "swing" states. If you have a truly national vote, then every vote counts the same.

that's basically my stance too. If Obama had not decided to run a 50 state campaign, the people of Texas and Illinois would really see or hear from the candidates. There's no point. McCain should win TX easily and Obama IL. But with a national system, they have to visit. what about the small states? Same thing. 50,000 votes in Idaho, Montana, the Dakotas, and Wyoming is 250,000 more votes.

 

A national election also means that EVERY vote counts and i really believe voter turn out would go up. In 2004, i would have voted for Kerry, but i never registered. what was the point? He was going to win IL anyways. At the time I wasn't really vested in local politics to make an educated vote.

Edited July 9, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[vandy125]

that's basically my stance too. If Obama had not decided to run a 50 state campaign, the people of Texas and Illinois would really see or hear from the candidates. There's no point. McCain should win TX easily and Obama IL. But with a national system, they have to visit. what about the small states? Same thing. 50,000 votes in Idaho, Montana, the Dakotas, and Wyoming is 250,000 more votes.

 

A national election also means that EVERY vote counts and i really believe voter turn out would go up. In 2004, i would have voted for Kerry, but i never registered. what was the point? He was going to win IL anyways. At the time I wasn't really vested in local politics to make an educated vote.

 

But those 250,000 votes are nothing compared to what you can get by concentrating on a place like LA where you can get that amount in 1 city.