How America Can Rise Again- Interesting Atlantic Article

[citizen k]

Less congressmen = each congressman is more likely to be bought off by lobbying interests.

Not even Goldman Sachs has enough lobbyists to influence 30,000 congressional votes.

Let's make it 300 million so it's Super Incorruptible!   

[Sheilbh]

I think most states have agreed to some kind of Electoral vote proportional distribution, provided the other states go along (because splitting votes when other states don't makes your state seem less important to the candidates).  The Maine/Nebraska system is certainly within the spirit of the EC, but I think a straight proportional split will be even better (as Nebraska split its vote in 2008 4-1 for McCain, even though Obama got 43% of the state's vote).

I see where you're coming from on it but I personally would rather the Nebraskan system of splitting it so that 2 EC votes go to whoever wins the state and then the other EC are broken down by Congressional district.

I would rather have less congressmen. The politicians that would theoretically fill in the extra spots--city council members and state legislators--don't have a reputation for being less corrupt. More congressmen = more people thinking up stupid laws.

I don't know.  I really dislike the Tory idea of shrinking the House of Commons.  I think the US needs more Representatives.

[Fate]

Less congressmen = each congressman is more likely to be bought off by lobbying interests.

Not even Goldman Sachs has enough lobbyists to influence 30,000 congressional votes.

Let's make it 300 million so it's Super Incorruptible!   

Why should it stay at 435? When the number was set in stone a congressman represented on average 212k people. In 2010 it's 725k. In 2090 it'll be 2.5 million.

[citizen k]

Less congressmen = each congressman is more likely to be bought off by lobbying interests.

Not even Goldman Sachs has enough lobbyists to influence 30,000 congressional votes.

Let's make it 300 million so it's Super Incorruptible!   

Why should it stay at 435? When the number was set in stone a congressman represented on average 212k people. In 2010 it's 725k. In 2090 it'll be 2.5 million.

In 3150 it'll be one congressbeing per star system.

[Fate]

Less congressmen = each congressman is more likely to be bought off by lobbying interests.

Not even Goldman Sachs has enough lobbyists to influence 30,000 congressional votes.

Let's make it 300 million so it's Super Incorruptible!   

Why should it stay at 435? When the number was set in stone a congressman represented on average 212k people. In 2010 it's 725k. In 2090 it'll be 2.5 million.

In 3150 it'll be one congressbeing per star system.

Okay, Timmah. 

[Neil]

In 3150 it'll be one congressbeing per star system.

American democracy can't really function at that level.  In fact, no democracy can survive the rigours of space colonization.

[grumbler]

All of those things would still be present in your system. If I am polling at 58% in Alaska before the election, I can ignore the state. 66%? Lets buy TV time and pick off that extra voter.

I think you misunderstand polling. There is no polling which will reliably tell you you are at X% of the vote.  Someone whose polls showed 58% in Alaska wouldn't be make significantly different decisions about their national campaign than one at 66%.

When I said there would be legal challenges and recounts, I meant over the results of the election. Take California--virtually any election result would be close to a demarcation line determining to whom an elector would be awarded.

Far less so than the demarcation line in the popular vote (which would be individual votes).  Pure popular vote would be a recipe for lawsuits.  Winner-take-all EC would, of course, have lawsuits (we have had them in the US repeatedly).  Proportional EC splits would have the same lawsuits of WTA EC, but would be more democratic because less gamed.  That seems to be a balance that works.

[Scipio]

No Senate? Who will keep the local systems in line?

Who will hire the publicani?

[Neil]

Proportional EC splits would have the same lawsuits of WTA EC, but would be more democratic because less gamed.  That seems to be a balance that works.

Is more democratic actually better?

[alfred russel]

I think you misunderstand polling. There is no polling which will reliably tell you you are at X% of the vote.  Someone whose polls showed 58% in Alaska wouldn't be make significantly different decisions about their national campaign than one at 66%.

I disagree. Eliminating undecideds and 3rd parties, a 58% to 42% lead heading into an election means it would be a major upset to have a 16% swing in the vote and the leading candidate lose his or her second electoral vote, while it would take an even larger swing to get the third electoral vote. In the current state of affairs, where the only relevent demarcation line is 50% in most states, campaigns will often pull resources out of a state if they are 16% points down.

Proportional EC splits would have the same lawsuits of WTA EC

??? Certainly it would have more lawsuits. If California has a relatively close 52%-48% voting split now, there is little point to contest the result because even with a 1% miscount the electoral vote division would not change. But if you have a proportional system, virtually every result is going to be close to a demarcation line.

And you still have the possibility of an election winner losing the popular votes. I'm not sure your system even reduces that risk.

[grumbler]

I disagree. Eliminating undecideds and 3rd parties, a 58% to 42% lead heading into an election means it would be a major upset to have a 16% swing in the vote and the leading candidate lose his or her second electoral vote, while it would take an even larger swing to get the third electoral vote. In the current state of affairs, where the only relevent demarcation line is 50% in most states, campaigns will often pull resources out of a state if they are 16% points down.

A 58-42 poll result could easily reflect a 10-point difference, because of error.  That wouldn't be an unprecedented change over a campaign year.  In fact, 15% wouldn't be unprecedented.

I am not sure that US election laws should be built around the assumption that the average state has 3 electoral votes, either.

??? Certainly it would have more lawsuits. If California has a relatively close 52%-48% voting split now, there is little point to contest the result because even with a 1% miscount the electoral vote division would not change. But if you have a proportional system, virtually every result is going to be close to a demarcation line.

And you still have the possibility of an election winner losing the popular votes. I'm not sure your system even reduces that risk.

You have a great deal more certainty than I (I don't claim anything is certain), but your certainty is unconvincing.  If California splits its popular vote 51-49%, lawsuits are highly likely in the WTA system, as the winner of the lawsuit will likely take 55 electoral votes and likely thus the election.  In the proportional system, the lawsuit will only occur in the highly unlikely even that the one electoral vote that would change hands will change the outcome of the election.

The possibility of the EC winner losing the popular vote is much diminished by having the EC votes distributed proportional to popular vote, because the only way this can happen is if you get a very strange split in the popular vote between large and small states.

[alfred russel]

A 58-42 poll result could easily reflect a 10-point difference, because of error.  That wouldn't be an unprecedented change over a campaign year.  In fact, 15% wouldn't be unprecedented.

I am not sure that US election laws should be built around the assumption that the average state has 3 electoral votes, either.

Over a campaign year? General elections don't last a year, but certainly in the last month of a campaign decisions are made to pull out resources in states that have poll numbers that far apart. Every presidential campaign I've seen has started with a 50 state strategy, and worked down to the handful of states that polling indicates are most competitive.

You have a great deal more certainty than I (I don't claim anything is certain), but your certainty is unconvincing.  If California splits its popular vote 51-49%, lawsuits are highly likely in the WTA system, as the winner of the lawsuit will likely take 55 electoral votes and likely thus the election.  In the proportional system, the lawsuit will only occur in the highly unlikely even that the one electoral vote that would change hands will change the outcome of the election.

Certainly there would be more recounts under your system. There would likely be more lawsuits, because in the case of a close electoral college result the current system has limited the lawsuits to one or two states, while your system would open it up to a large number.

Imagine the case of the 2000 election. Gore wins the popular vote by .5%, which if that is the difference reflected in the electoral college he would win by about 3 votes--a virtual tie. In that case, the candidates could challenge the results of half the states, with more than remote hopes of success.

The electoral college results would also likely get closer in your system, because of the way the current system amplifies differences. For example, Obama got 53% of the popular vote, but 68% of the electoral college.

The possibility of the EC winner losing the popular vote is much diminished by having the EC votes distributed proportional to popular vote, because the only way this can happen is if you get a very strange split in the popular vote between large and small states.

I don't why that is true. The only time in modern US history a candidate losing the popular vote won the electoral college was a virtual tie--a difference of about .5%. In an election that close, can you really say Gore would have a distinct advantage under your system? It seems to me that either system is going to give the loser of the popular vote a solid chance of winning depending on how vote distribution breaks down.

[alfred russel]

Of course, the real problem is if this is left to the states. A few states may go with the system of awarding votes based on the congressional district results, while others go with the system of proportional awards. If that happens, all bets are off as to the "fairness" of the system. If California and New York go with the proportional system proposed by Grumbler, while the rest of the states go with the Congressional district results used by Nebraska, a Democrat is going to have an exceedingly difficult time getting elected president.

[grumbler]

Over a campaign year? General elections don't last a year, but certainly in the last month of a campaign decisions are made to pull out resources in states that have poll numbers that far apart. Every presidential campaign I've seen has started with a 50 state strategy, and worked down to the handful of states that polling indicates are most competitive.

Presidential campaigns often last a year, or longer.  In any election system candidates are going to focus their efforts where there is the most payoff.  Very few campaigns have ever had a 50-state strategy.  Not even Obama really had a 50-state strategy.

Certainly there would be more recounts under your system. There would likely be more lawsuits, because in the case of a close electoral college result the current system has limited the lawsuits to one or two states, while your system would open it up to a large number.

Again, your certainty is unpersuasive.  These things don't become certain because you state that they are.  In fact, in a proportional system recounts will be far fewer, because the consequences of a recount are so small.

Imagine the case of the 2000 election. Gore wins the popular vote by .5%, which if that is the difference reflected in the electoral college he would win by about 3 votes--a virtual tie. In that case, the candidates could challenge the results of half the states, with more than remote hopes of success.

0.5% is within the margin of error, so the assertion that Gore wins the popular vote is at best speculative.  Lawsuits did erupt all over the place in the 2000 election, so having them in your scenario changes nothing.

The electoral college results would also likely get closer in your system, because of the way the current system amplifies differences. For example, Obama got 53% of the popular vote, but 68% of the electoral college.

Yes, the current system amplifies differences.  That is what I want to change.  Outcomes that come closer to reflecting the peoples' will are more democratic.

I don't why that is true. The only time in modern US history a candidate losing the popular vote won the electoral college was a virtual tie--a difference of about .5%. In an election that close, can you really say Gore would have a distinct advantage under your system? It seems to me that either system is going to give the loser of the popular vote a solid chance of winning depending on how vote distribution breaks down.

I think an election system should be based on what we desire, and what is possible, rather than basing it on a handful of recent elections. If proportional EC distribution had been the rule in 2000, Bush would have won, without all the lawsuits.   However, the reason to go that route isn't because it would have avoided the 2000 election fiasco, but because it would more accurately reflect the popular vote (but still allow the small-state edge installed by the framers).

[Sheilbh]

Of course, the real problem is if this is left to the states. A few states may go with the system of awarding votes based on the congressional district results, while others go with the system of proportional awards. If that happens, all bets are off as to the "fairness" of the system. If California and New York go with the proportional system proposed by Grumbler, while the rest of the states go with the Congressional district results used by Nebraska, a Democrat is going to have an exceedingly difficult time getting elected president.

I believe many of the big states, certainly New York, California and Illinois support a constitutional convention on the EC issue.