OTOH.

Also- Saying that everyone has the right to an opinion doesn't mean that some aren't better than others.

I hate the electoral college, and this is the most lucid argument against I've seen. Plus it's very entertaining!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k

What nonsense. Apparently the author of the article doesn't realize that the elimination of the electoral college would essentially turn over the election to dense population centers (aka big cities). Hmmm, they also tend to vote heavily Democrat. Nah, that's paranoid thinking.

If we went to a direct popular vote, why would any candidate even both with Rhode Island, the Dakotas, Wyoming and about 20 other states. They would only need to target the states with large cities. So, we've come full circle.

Having read several books over the years (both for and against) about the electoral college I have come to the conclusion that those FOR have put forth better arguements than those against.

But, the bottom line, to me, is that both sides can do nothing more than speculate what will happen if we eliminate the electoral college and go to direct popular vote, at that point in time if direct popular vote turns out to be worse than the electoral college it will be too late to turn back.

> The Electoral College is a relic of a time when the Framers believed that average people could not be trusted with selecting a president, at least not entirely.

Yes, the last 100 years have proven conclusively that the mob does an expert job of selecting leaders, and the more we expand the vote away from land-holding men, the better the leadership gets!

</sarcasm>

Many other things bother me about the US election system that to me dwarf this. The main being the way the 2 parties can effectiveely exclude other parties and candidates. Next being the crazy level of power the media has in such elections.

The electoral college process is also a throwback to when states actually mattered and had power as opposed to an overpowered federal government.

We would be well-advised to move in the opposite direction. Currently, the presidential election is a popularity contest. Winning requires you to look good on television, to read a teleprompter, to survive having your personal life discussed on the evening news, and above all on your ability to raise money. This all has nothing to do with the abilities actually required lead the executive branch of government. Moving to direct election would simply cement this popularity contest in place.

Far better would be for the president to be selected by some means - almost any means - other than popular vote. Selected by the Senate. Selected by State legislatures. Selected by State governors. Anything that will provide at least a chance of selecting a president based on his or her ability to govern, rather than the ability to get elected. As a bonus, the president will be less beholden to major donors, because getting elected will no longer cost hundreds of million of dollars.

So, yes, do away with the electoral college, and with the presidential elections at the same time.

What most people don't understand that there is no right to a vote. A state legislature can just appoint electors.

I don't mind eliminating the electoral college in favor of a majority vote in each state (which, frankly, is how it works now anyway) but I would prefer to maintain a presidency that is elected by the states, not a nationwide popular vote. One of the strengths of our system is that the 50 states do carry some autonomy and flexibility to enact local solutions. As Joe J said, this has been eroded over time, but do we really want to throw away one of the remaining powers of the states?

While this is an interesting point of view that has its merits, I don't particularly agree with it.

Please note that I am prefacing this with "don't particularly" because I certainly haven't spent tons of time studying this and am not particularly well informed.

However, it seems to me that both the electoral college and the (now defunct) election of senators by representatives served as mechanisms to keep power away from centralized governments and in more local governments and the people.

If senators (who aren't supposed to represent the PEOPLE or their interests but the state's interests) are elected by representatives, then different areas of the state (which may have different economic bases) each get a hand in that vote. So, Chicago has business offices and such, but much of Illinois is agricultural. However, more people live in cities. It could (potentially) be to the state's benefit OVERALL if each major economic sector (and the people/interests involved) get to be heard more equally compared to each person. Voting by representative is a not-horrible proxy for this. Also, if your representative dorked up the senate vote, they'd be liable to be voted out quickly, which would make it "easier" to unseat a senator.

Similarly (in my mind), the electoral college is like each state voting on the presidency. The states are treated as States (like the Baltic States) not as geographical areas of one uber-state/country. This helps keep control more locally (state-level) rather than nationally. To my understanding, the States were at one point considered almost as sovereign nations and the US part was like the Euro-zone.

Now, there are obvious shortcomings in this system. For instance, I have to imagine that the more conservative areas of California experience much frustration every four years - especially as CA has a HUGE block of votes. However, I felt that the reasoning (as I understand it anyway) is important to go through because of the following...

For all the people out there saying that this isn't how democracy is supposed to work, I agree. The US was never intended to BE a democracy. It is supposed to be a constitutional republic. Democracies can fall into mob rule. It can really suck to be in the minority. One can argue for or against a democracy vs. constitutional republic, they both have pros & cons, but if it doesn't look like a democracy, there's a reason.

Personally, I'd like to see an electoral college system based on the House districts. It would be closer to a popular vote (more democratic), would encourage consideration of a very wide set of economies (agriculture, business centers, transportation, leisure, industrial, coal, etc.), wouldn't disenfranchise local pockets that differ from their states as a whole (e.g. Potomac MD, Fairfax VA, San Diego CA) and would reintroduce states that are currently ignored. Also, there would be no "swing states."

OK. Sorry. Rant over.

"Yes, the last 100 years have proven conclusively that the mob does an expert job of selecting leaders, and the more we expand the vote away from land-holding men, the better the leadership gets!"

This comment loses the internets today, combining racism, sexism, and ignorance of American history in a single sentence.

Minneapolis-St Paul gave us Al Franken and Jesse Ventura - Minnesota did not. Thinkaboutit.

It is almost as though the founders could see a few years into the future and the French Revolution. Mob rule, the Terror, the seizure of power by the man on horseback, and the crowning of that same man as Emperor of the French. The electoral college is designed to prevent that kind of result, and until now, has worked reasonably well. We are a republic, not a mobocracy, and hope to remain that way. I am not at all surprised that it is the left who want to end the electoral college.

...With our two-party monopoly on power in the United States, candidates spend little time, if any, in states that are clearly going to go for the other party -- or even for their own party.

That's the states' doing. States decide how their electors are apportioned. All but two have a winner-takes-all approach. The one-party states that award all their electors to the winner of the statewide voting have happily turned themselves into voting and fund-raising ATMs for a particular party.

New Mexico awards its electors by district with the two state-wide electors going to the state's overall winner. More states need to adopt that model. Even in California, where only a few districts would go Republican, would benefit if both parties felt a need to court voters in the state.

Voter turnout would increase. If a California Republican or a Texas Democrat knew his vote could mean an elector for his candidate, he'd be more likely to vote.

Third (and fourth) parties, like the Libertarians, might even benefit from that model. Capture a single Congressional district and you've got a vote in the Electoral College.

==============================

Electing a president by popular votes means only the population centers have a vote.

Do we want to be like France, where rural districts become so frustrated with being ignored by the country's urban-centric government that the farmers drive their tractors to Paris and clog the streets just so they can be heard once in a while?

==============================

Having the president selected by the likes of Dianne Feinstein is such a horrible thought I actually shuddered reading that.

Me too.

Her latest rant against California's high gas prices indicates a horrible lack of understanding of simple economics. This is a woman who once lamented that half the population pays higher-than-average premiums for health care. Uh, Diane, that's what an average is.

And to make matters even worse - of California's Senate duo, she's the smart one.

The Electoral College is not perfect, and the writers of the US Constitution were quite aware of that. But the next-best option was a general vote, with each citizen vote having equal weight, and they did not want that. As with the difference between the Senate and House, they did not want city dwellers to control the woprking of farms, nor farmers to control cities, because the differences in the ways people lived and worked were often at odds.

While things have changed, rural-vs-suburb-vs-city differences are still something that is perhaps best handled by having representation of each in government. A "populat Vote" method would result in only cities actually having any representation: alrready rural areas are largely un-represented, but suburbs are still allowed some representation beside cities.

Why care? Well, one example, in California water in agricultural areas is diverted to cities (LA, Frisco) - endangering the food that city dwellers need but sold as "cheaper" than building water (desalinization or sewer or even more dam) plants. Without adequate representation, agricultural areas cannot even offer any idea of compromise.

Conan - "...lamented that half the population pays higher-than-average premiums for health care. Uh, Diane, that's what an average is."

I think you are confusing mean and median. The two are the same in some cases (such as a normal distribution). However, if the distribution is skewed it is unlikely to be at all close to the median.

Non-skewed: 1,2,3,4
average: 2.5
median: 2.5,

Skewed: 1,2,3,400
average: 101.5
median: 2.5

No, Shannon, I'm not.

In an ideal bell curve population, the average represents 50% above and 50% below the mean.

Since it is expected that there are not many significant outliers for health insurance premiums that would skew the population curve (i.e., most families pay a roughly equivalent amount for standard health insurance depending upon number of members and coverage rates), a bell curve for the population is assumed.

Hence, the expected outcome is that 50% pay above the mean (average) amount for health insurance and 50% pay below the mean (average) amount.

If I had been talking about something which could be expected to have a skewed curve, I would have qualified my statement.

I researched this quite some time ago, things have changed though I doubt significantly enough to affect the end result.

The strongest point in my opinion was the top or three states would have almost all the sway. This was concluded by taking the most lobsided voting for each state and then looking at what it would take to change the out come of the election. So if Rhode Island had a presidential vote of 75% to 25% then candidate A was given 75% of the population vote. The result was if the 48 smallest states votes for candidate A by their historic most extreme votes the two largest (by population) could elect B by voting for B 60% to 40%. If you look at the top 3 it is down to like 55%/45%. This by memory so the numbers are not exact.

Further more the extremes in all states are unlikely. If candidate B's stand pleases Northern Cal it likely please Oregon to, or SoCal & Nevada.

Also in large elections like that, the multilevel election gives each individual a better change of turning the outcome.

Think of 81 people voting (may not be large enough for the math to work) divided in to 9 groups of 9 vs. the whole 81. The changes that you will turn a small group (the 8 others split 4 to 4) and then that small group turning the larger group (the 8 other small groups are divided 4 to 4) is greater than the whole with the others dividing 40 to 40.

"Having the president selected by the likes of Dianne Feinstein is such a horrible thought I actually shuddered reading that."

Oh. My. God. Yes, that is indeed a mightmarish thought. Much worse than fingenails on a chalkboard.

Conan,

I said that they CAN be the same (specifically, I cited the normal distribution, which is the classic so-called "ideal bell curve").

In insurance, I was assuming one did NOT throw out the outliers such as those who don't purchase (that's still legal, right... for a few months anyway?) or those with nasty pre-existing conditions who would traditionally have much higher premiums (again, subject to change with newer data). Also, self-pay versus employer-paid are different in out-of-pocket costs (possibly creating a bimodal distribution).

Barring different assumptions, you are correct in that the mean of a normal distribution is ALSO the median. HOWEVER, the definition of the mean does NOT imply that without the distributional assumption. Strictly speaking, the MEDIAN is the 50/50 point.

Without actually testing the assumptions of normality (or near-normality) we can't actually say they are the same. If you've got data on it, I'd be interested in seeing it (I don't - hence the lack of assuming population distribution).

Sorry to be soap-boxy, but the assumption of normality (or near-normality) without cause is one of the major problems in data analysis (IMHO).

The argument against Feinstein is fallacious. Disappointing in a blog professing to use logic and reason.

But that's not my point. You have no Constitutional right to vote for the President, as you are now accustomed.

You'd better start thinking about that when somebody argues for the popular vote. The popular vote is exactly why we're in the toilet today.

Shannon,

If you don't purchase health insurance, you're not paying premiums and therefore would not be in the population of premium payers. Likewise for folks rejected due to pre-existing conditions.

I am assuming a normal distribution. In a population as large as US residents purchasing and paying for health insurance, assuming a normal distrubution seems reasonable.

I'm also assuming that outliers like those who did get insurance despite pre-existing conditions (and are paying more for it) would not seriously skew the distribution and so, again, I'm assuming a normal distribution.

If you've got evidence that it's not a normal distribution, I'd be happy to reassess my assumptions.

Keep in mind, the point I was making was not about mean vs. median or statistical analysis (I deal with data analysis nearly every day at work), but the lack of statistical awareness evidenced by Feinstein's feigned outrage that half the people paying health insurance premiums are paying premiums higher than the average premium.

When it comes to reasons why we have electors, go to the source . . .

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp

And if you want the con, Anti-Federalist #72 is for you . . .

http://www.thisnation.com/library/antifederalist/72.html

Conan,

I understand what you are saying. I was considering a different population (all people's insurance costs, including those for whom it is zero).

As I said, the confusion of mean & median is something that is a particular thorn in my side.

I do not have data one way or the other, which is why I would (were I to have to comment on it) use nonparametric methods. Large population does not guarantee normal(ish) - particularly if the underlying population is not normal. You simply need a large population to use the assumption at all. But now we're getting into the differences between samples and populations, which is an entire different discussion. :)

Sorry to have gone so far off track, I just have a thing about mean & median being confused and people defaulting to the mean with no reason (or thinking at all) behind it. Often it simply isn't appropriate (like in triglyceride levels).

I'll get off this soap box now. I'm glad you were thinking about the various parameters, most people don't and just glibly toss "statistics" about as if they have half a clue, when they don't.

I was trying to explain the Electoral College to a friend the other day and came across this gem, which, just cements my opinion that the Electoral College needs to go:

The Trouble with the Electoral College

Shannon M. Howell at October 9, 2012 7:58 AM

I'm going to skip the re-post just because of length.

You have several good points. Part of the issue is the warp done to the system. The Reapportionment Act of 1929 screwed up a lot. And that includes the Electoral College. That should have never been done. Each state should have something about 100K per district and the House of Representatives would be about 3100 people.

What should have been done is that the United States should have been broken up into regional United countries that the groups of states then made up the group of countries.

Technically each state is an individual country.

But what should have happened is that each state would have X number of electoral votes per state. But it should be by district that the electoral votes are awarded.

Add in that the person that is the electoral college voter isn't, "technically", required to vote for the state's (district's) winner, they are obliged.

My dream would be that each state gets two votes on popularity overall. Then the individual district gets it's individual majority vote. But the EC voter still has a choice because on the day after the second Tuesday in November when we find out that John Smith with the popular vote is totally insane.

"...which, just cements my opinion that the Electoral College needs to go..."

So, Dag, where do you get to vote?

See above, in bold.

The reason we have an Electoral College is because our republic is designed to be a federal union and not a popular democracy. If we abolished the Electoral College, we might as well just abolish the concept of statehood altogether, and have just one big country whose political- and social policies are determined by national referenda.

Hey, let's try that in microcosm (which is what our "civic laboratory of the states" allows us to do, by the way). Pick one state -- make it a state with a huge urban population, like New York, California or Illinois -- and do away with all electoral districts, making all statewide elections simple popular referenda. See how the people living outside the cities like the results.

The people wanting to do away with the EC are people who are frustrated by the limits the EC places on power, in this case, the power of the mob. Unfortunately for them, the limitation of power is the bedrock principle on which this country was founded, and the alternative is post-Revolutionary France. Thanks, but no thanks.

That's also why having the Senate select the President is so stupid an idea. Lest we forget, that pesky limitation of power thing (in this case, of government) mandates a tripartite sharing of power between three branches: legislative, judicial and executive. If we're going to allow the legislative branch to select the executive, why not also let the judicial (i.e. Supreme Court) select the legislative?

Getting rid of the Electoral College is not only a stupid, stupid idea, but the motives of its proponents have to be scrutinized with the utmost suspicion. Leave well alone: it's worked for centuries -- we ARE the longest-standing democratic republic ever, after all -- and the system isn't even cracked, let alone broken, so it needs no "fixing" anyway.

The Founders -- quite possibly the wisest group of men ever collected under one roof -- were terrified of the rule of the mob, and justifiably so. We would be incredibly stupid to think that we can improve on their design, especially when so much proof abounds as to the bad things that have happened when the alternative to our representative republic has been in place.

Oh, and Jonathan Turley is a serious Lefty, so HIS motives for abolishing the EC are pretty obvious. Letting him be the arbiter on this topic would be like letting Dianne Feinstein be the arbiter on gun laws, Al Sharpton the arbiter on race policy, or Code Pink the arbiter on defense policy.

Shannon, I understand. The correlation-automatically-assumed-to-equal-causation fallacy is a bugaboo of mine.

Of course, one can take the opposite view too seriously as well and miss the point.

Still.

=========================

The Senate should not elect the president because the Senate is part of a separate branch of the government.

You don't want the president under the thumb of the senators who put him in office and can simply threaten to remove him if he doesn't go along with their desires.

Conan,

We've found some serious common ground. I hate that too. Enough that I got truly irked one day and wrote a poem about it that illustrates the stupidity in that assumption. I emailed it to my undergraduate adviser - who thought it was hilarious.

Unfortunately, it's a very niche poem.

Getting rid of the Electoral College is not only a stupid, stupid idea, but the motives of its proponents have to be scrutinized with the utmost suspicion. Leave well alone: it's worked for centuries -- we ARE the longest-standing democratic republic ever, after all -- and the system isn't even cracked, let alone broken, so it needs no "fixing" anyway. -- Kim du Toit at October 10, 2012 7:33 AM

I'm not going to disagree with your sentiment. I want to get rid of the limit on the size of the House. My state is not proportionately by the house by a wide measure. Same with about 50% of the states.

The same applies to the EC as well.