US electoral college

Editor1

Well-Known Member
Hope this is the best forum in which to post this.

There are quite a few areas regarding US government that I am dissatisfied with. One of them, that comes into focus on election day, is the use of the electoral college. Yes, I understand the historical basis for it. But I feel it is not the best way to go about electing a president.

As it stands now, too great of a focus comes down to too small of an area and many voters are effectively disenfranchised. If you happen to be a Republican living in New York or a Democrat living in Texas, there is less incentive to vote because you feel the outcome is already decided. Also, candidates tend to focus their campaign resources on the so-called 'swing states' and ignore many others. Only once in the last 20 years has a presidential candidate campaigned in the state where I happened to live at that time, because it was not judged to be a 'swing state'.

If there is a reason to keep the electoral college, I would suggest dividing it along congressional district lines. Let each district represent one electoral vote, rather than one candidate getting ALL the votes from that state. In California, for example, instead of one candidate getting all 55 electoral votes, it could be split up by district. That would 1) be a fairer representation and 2) give candidates an incentive to campaign there. Even if a candidate did not win the entire state, he/she could win SOME electoral votes and the split would be fairer.

Another option would be to proportion electoral votes according to the percentage of the popular vote. So if Barack Obama got 55 percent of the vote and Mitt Romney 44 percent, then split the electoral votes accordingly.

I would have no objection to eliminating the electoral college completely. But if you want to keep it, it can be reformed and still serve a valid purpose.

There are plenty of options. I just believe there are ways to do it that are fairer than the system in place at present.

Agree? Disagree?
 

mattfivefour

Administrator
Staff member
I don't get to vote in US elections, bro; but as a journalist, a professional watcher of politics, and a man who appreciates and strongly supports the United States (not to mention my wife is an American, in fact a Daughter of the American Revolution and a descendant of the earliest settlers) I agree with you on the problem inherent in the electoral college system. Still, I also see its need. Therefore, rather than abolish it, I like your suggestion for reforming it by removing the winner-take-all method from those states that practice it and dividing the nation's electoral votes by congressional district.
 

livin_in_the_Son

Well-Known Member
I agree Matt5:4, at my house today we had an election day extravaganza...talking about how the election takes place, the electoral college vs the popular vote...and we all decided that the system is funky for today's population.
 

jodee

Well-Known Member
You Canadian Mattfourfive?

I stated in another thread, I feel like my vote didn't count..state was still white..several were when they were calling Obama to win. It was just called so early. Romney's concession speech seemed so well rehearsed. Did he know he was going to lose?

A sad day for us and Israel. May our prayers be even more for the nation of Israel.:israel:
 

arapahoepark

Well-Known Member
I agree to an extent...I think at least the larger states should be broken up. If that's the case, democrats would lose. California would give a sizeable minority to republicans. As for places like NY, democrats would still win the majority. But at the same time, this electoral college was put in place to ensure the minority got a bigger say. We're talking like Romney won the majority popular vote and he didn't. Found father's liked republicanism but feared democracy and for good reason.
 

Editor1

Well-Known Member
You Canadian Mattfourfive?

I stated in another thread, I feel like my vote didn't count..state was still white..several were when they were calling Obama to win. It was just called so early. Romney's concession speech seemed so well rehearsed. Did he know he was going to lose?

A sad day for us and Israel. May our prayers be even more for the nation of Israel.:israel:
Jodee, I saw just the opposite in Romney's speech. A man who was somewhat in shock at the result and had a hard time accepting it.

Romney's campaign was running an uphill battle from Day 1. He rarely put any new ideas on the table, never detailed how he would fix the job shortage or cut the deficit. His entire hope seem to hinge on voters' unhappiness with Obama and the status quo. Well, as with Obama in 2008, it's far easier to campaign on hope and change than it is to defend a real-world mixed record.

In the end, Romney just doesn't seem to offer enough of a contrast to convince voters to make a change.
 

mattfivefour

Administrator
Staff member
Yes, in his blog and email today Joel Rosenberg certainly puts his finger on the fact that Romney is not a true conservative, stumbled badly on things he should not have stumbled on, and flip-flopped a few times on issues so that many independent and thinking voters did not have a strong sense of confidence in him.
 

Editor1

Well-Known Member
Republicans, rightfully so, saw jobs and the economy as the key weaknesses in Obama's first term. They nominated Mitt Romney because he was a successful businessman who they thought could sell a message of jobs to a hurting public.

Romney's message from day one was jobs, jobs, jobs. (even though he gave precious few specifics on how he planned to actually create new jobs outside of government). He always seemed uncomfortable talking about abortion, gay rights, immigration and basically disowned the health care plan he put in place while governor of Massachusetts.

Had we lived in different times with a better economy, my guess is the Republicans might have nominated a different, more conservative issues and pressed social issues more. Not sure where that argument would have gone. The number of LGBT people and immigrants is growing and abortion is entrenched as a fundamental woman's right now. When you argue against those issues, too often you come across appearing bigoted and intolerant. Given the changes in the electorate over the last 30 years, that's a hard place to be. It may win points in a Republican primary, but will get you absolutely demolished in a general election nationally.

So the Republicans banked on a message of creating more jobs and more prosperity. That's something few people would object to. But they didn't have enough specifics to get enough people to put their trust in them. Only time will tell what the next cycle yields.
 
Top