The American Electorial system

[profound]

The current American electorial system, how, if at all, would you change it?

(someone please tell me the actual word for the system by which we elect our "leaders" [i'm lost])

[El Commandante]

The current electoral system of America operates under an electoral college system where the electorate vote for delegates to represent them in the college where the eventual president is decided. Each state has at least 3 delegates - to represent that they have at least one Senator and two congress members. But some states have more delegates depending on their size and status with California being the largest with 50+ delegates and examples of smaller states including North and South Dakota, Alaska, Vermont and New Hampshire.

The electorate cast their votes for the party delegates which they want to support, the votes are counted and the system works an a winner takes all system with the party with the majority winning all of the votes for the state ... be it 3 or 50 depending on state size. The delegates then go to the electoral college in early December and vote for the party that they have been assigned to. The original idea of the system which the founding fathers had was that the delegates would remove any radical candidates which had managed to break through to prevent a potentially damaging president taking office. The delegates almost always vote for who they have been told to ... except in 2000 one delegate for the D.C area changed his vote from Gore to another candidate who had not stood in protest. The eventual president is the candidate which wins an overall majority of the votes. They are then inaugurated early the next year.


There is absolutely no chance of changing the system because it is constitutionally agreed, they have been only 25 or so amendments to the constitution and those outside of the Bill of Rights have been for the most part fairly insignificant because of the difficulty in passing the possible changes because of need for a supra majority which is virtually impossible because of the different regional issues concerned. A possible change which should be introduced is the division of electoral college votes on a proportional basis rather than a winner takes all one - you just need to look at Florida to see the need for this, but there were also similar cases to this in New Mexico and Oregon so a proportional system would seem sensible. But also very unlikely to happen.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

One obvious change would be the elimination of the electoral college. There is no good reason to winning states more important than getting the most popular votes.

Also, it would be nice to vote for multiple candidates--getting a first, second, and third choice.

Campaigns should be public. Legit candidates should get free TV time, and not be allowed to run commercials. Public financing.

[El Commandante]

Another change which needs to be introduced is increased ease in registering to vote. I think that at the moment registration for elections has to be done each year which turns many people away from the process, whilst here in the UK once you have been entered onto an electoral list you remain there until you move out of the constituency or die. At the moment it is disproportionately ethnic minorities and females which are not voting so there needs to be some change which is more solid than the voter motor bill which was designed to allow registration whilst renewing road tax.

Another reform like MIN states is the need to regulate the campaigns which candidates conduct through the media. At the moment the election is mainly based on which candidate can raise the most money and this ultimately leads to the wishes of the funders being pandered for rather than those of the electorate.

[Knowledge 6 6 6]

...or they could just eliminate the 'minorities' and elderly, like how Mr. Bush didso with the Florida recall, hahaha...

"There's a difference between Hitler and George W. Bush. Hitler was democratically elected into power, by the majority." - Knowledge

hahaha...

:D

[Funky Monk]

Legit candidates?

How can you tell?

[lifetrnal]

Hmmm, well if I had my way I would:

Smash Capitalism and its insturment of oppression THE STATE. :-)

[timbaly]

Since each state has atleast 3 votes the # of who vote per votes in the electoral college is far from even. both DC and Wyoming have an equal # of votes in the electoral system but in DC only 201,355 people voted. In Wyoming 213,726 people voted, yet both DC and WY have an equal # of votes in the electoral system. Vermont also has 3 electoral votes yet more people in that state voted than in DC and WY. In VT 293,794 people voted. There is a big difference in # of votes from Vermont to DC but they bith have equal representation. In DC there is 1 elector per 67,118. In VT it's 91,931. In WY it's 71,242. The sytem is not fair and DC gets more representation in the election ( but otherwise DC has very little representaion at all, no Senators or House members) than Vermont and Wyoming because they have less voters yet an equal amount of electors.

In California 10,965,822 people voted and they had 54 electors ( they will have 55 in the next election) This mean they had 203,070 votes per elector. In Texas there were 6,406,933 voters and 32 electors, thats 200,216 votes per elector. When compared to Vermonts 293,794 votes per elector you can see how the system isn't fair. The smaller states have more of an advantage in the votes per electors department because each state is guaranteed atleast 3 votes, so whether a state has 600,000 people or 10 people they are equally represented. I believe 2 of the electors for the small states represent senators and one for population. Voting should be about population, as in are there a higher population of people who voted for candidate A or candidate B. So a state like Vermont should only have one elector for its 608,827 residents and California should have 53 for its 33,871,648. This way there would be 608,827 residents per elector in Vermont and 639,087 in California. This way it's far more een than the way it is now. However this system would still be uneven. Going by population is also unfair because not every citizen can vote and many people who can choose not to.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Originally posted by Knowledge 6 6 [email protected] 5 2003, 10:02 AM
"There's a difference between Hitler and George W. Bush. Hitler was democratically elected into power, by the majority." - Knowledge

hahaha...

:D
Ha Ha! I have heard variations of that before. You know you are in deep shit when the leader of your country is compared to Hitler, and Hitler comes off as the better of the candidates... actually being elected and all...

[Red Flag]

Yeah that hurts