Talk:United States Electoral College

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former featured article This article is a former featured article. Please see its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy United States Electoral College appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 20, 2004.

(Though we should note that at the time it was one paragraph long - now it is around 75 paragraphs long) Don't be afraid to make big changes!Juneappal 20:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

See also: Talk:Electoral college

Archived discussions

(Archive4 is not full. Please fill it before starting a new archive page.)

Contents

[edit] Per state resource allocations for campaigns

In the article is states "They do of course pour the bulk of their resources into "battleground states" which are equally divided between the two major parties--- but the large battleground states get more resources than the smaller ones, not fewer."

Is this per person, or total, because that makes a huge difference in the argument made here. Of course more resources would be poured into states with large populations, but is this per capita or what? Ed Sanville 13:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

He's arguing that more resources are poored into states that often vote different ways than states who usually vote one way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.130.60.100 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Alternative Systems

"...Some have argued that the French system creates problems of its own; it is possible that the initial vote becomes divided up between so many candidates that someone who is highly undesirable to most voters can make it to the second round of voting, as occurred in 2002 with the rise of candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen to the runoff election..."

"Highly undesirable" is a wrong term: if a candidate got enough votes to go to the second round, it means that a large number of voters "desires" the candidate to be president!

The article on Jean-Marie Le Pen explains why the French considered him highly undesirable. He is used as an example of the flaws in the French system because he received 16.8% of the vote. He got the second round of elections due the fact that there were so many people running. The issue is that with more people running, the cutoff percent potentially gets lower and lower until you could possible have a guy make it to the second round with less than 1% of the vote (I admit that it would take half of France to run for election to get that low - but this is an extreme examples). Kainaw 19:01, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Surely this is a specious argument? As the first comment points out 16% of voters supported Le Pen in the first round - a large number of people. In the second round he increased his support to only 17.8% and was soundly defeated by Chirac. So, while the majority of the French do see him as unsuitable, 17.8% see him as suitable - but that isn't enough to elect him (or anywhere near it). It in no way invalidates the process. The popular choice was elected (unlike the US system where a president doesn't need to get a majority popular vote to win). --Nickj69 14:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Detractor argument: Use of the term "disenfranchise"

I do not think the use of the term 'disenfranchise' is appropriately used in the section of the article presenting the arguments against the Electoral College system.

Disenfranchise is to 'deprive of the right to vote.' Voters who vote in the minority in a given state, while deprived of seeing their candidate supported in the electoral college, are not by any means deprived of their right to cast a vote.

In our system, the electoral college sets up mini-elections that are rolled up into a larger election. Minority-candidate voters in a particular state are not disenfranchised just as minority-candidate voters would not be disenfranchised in a popular-vote election.

The idea that an large-state resident's vote "counts less" than a small-state resident's is a fair statement to make; however, I believe that the benefits of balancing the numeric and geographic components of public opinion outweigh the perceived inequity of not having a one citizen/one vote for president election.

The article states that Gore/Liebermann had "6 unpopular votes". Is this someone's idea of a joke or does this term mean something? Cigarette 13:42, 3 Nov 2004


the See Also section contains the following:

The statement Bush/Cheney won the electoral vote with 271 votes by cheating. is false. It is an emotional response not based on fact.

I assume this is more vandalism. It appears this article has restricted editing or else I would elminate the passage myself. Funkyj 01:23, 2004 Nov 4 (UTC)

[edit] Two persons

Following is an email sent to webmaster@wikipedia.org. I will reply to the email by giving him the standard WP:BB line and directing him to this talk page. -- Tim Starling 00:12, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Subject: article on the Electoral College (U.S.)
From: Carl Moore
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 14:07:50 EST
To: webmaster@wikipedia.org

I see "Originally, each elector voted for two persons." That is STILL true!!! What changed was that the 12th Amendment calls for each elector to vote for 1 person as president and 1 person as vice president. Perhaps say "Originally, each elector voted for two persons without specifying president or vice president."

[edit] Introduced some more subheadings and some more points to the different arguments

Hello all, I just introduced a number of subheadings into the text to divide it up more clearly. I also introduced a number of diverse additional points to different aspects of the Pro-and-Con arguments and slightly reordered some paragraphs. I believe the additional material to be factual and NPOV, and I believe the subheadings increase clarity. I hope this is OK with the other contributors. All the best, -- 84.57.79.215 17:27, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Introduction paragragh has been repeated

Look at the top of the article, its there, twice. My inexperince at editing means im mising ot on how to change it so there it is there only once. Chrismullan

That's not all - almost the entire article is repeated twice. I don't want to pick through all the edits to see which is the most up-to-date, so I'm simply removing the second half of the repetition. This has been caused by people now knowing how to revert. If you want to revert, go to the history, click on the date of the version that you want to revert to, click Edit This Page (you will see a warning that it is an old version), and save it. Don't try to cut and paste old versions on top of new ones. Kainaw 15:33, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The E College and Third Parties

I don't understand how the electoral college stifles third parties. Even if there were a direct election, a third party candidate's 19 percent of the vote would still translate into 0 percent of political power. The simple fact is that presidential power cannot be divided. Imagine if Ross Perot had won 19 percet of the electoral college, 102 votes, he still would have lost.

As long as there is a unipersonal executive, a presidential election is always going to be winner take all.

Where winner take all is relevant in explaing our lack of third parties is in legislatures.

No other post is elected by an e college in the US, yet third party victories are still exceedingly rare. (IIRC, there are eight third party state legislators right now, out of 8,000. Four of those eight are in Burlington, VT)

dinopup

In the way that all but 2 of the states handle the electoral college, third parties cannot get any electoral votes. The states use a plurality to give all of the electoral votes to one candidate. For a third party candidate to win, that candidate must get more votes in the entire state than any other candidate. While it is possible (and it has happened in the past), it is not probable.
Now, consider the two states that use allot the electoral votes to regions within the state - mini electoral colleges. It is much more probable for a third party candidate to gain a plurality in a smaller region and therefore gain an electoral vote in one region of one of those states.
When it comes down to it, an electoral college makes it easier for a third party candidate to get a larger vote margin because the candidate has the ability to target low-populated areas that count just as much as higher populated ones. However, the United States isn't using an electoral college inside the states themselves (except 2). So, that popular vote is basically barring them from the electoral vote. Kainaw 15:20, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Even if winner take all by state were changed to proportional allocation, or district allocation, a third party candidate would still be a long way from 269 votes. What difference would it make if a Perot or Nader could win electoral votes? They still would lose the elections. Wallace, Thurmond, and TR won e votes, and their third parties still disintegrated.
If we had district allocation, and a Green won districts like Berkeley, CA or Dane County, Wisconsin, then the Green party would be an asterisk to the electoral vote, just like it is an asterisk to the popular vote. It would do little to make the Green party an enduring, significant party. What the US needs to have non-trivial third parties is proportional representation for legislative races. In legislative races, getting 5 % of the seats means getting 5 % of the power. In the electoral college, since the presidency cannot be divided, getting 5% of the e votes means getting 0 % of the power.
It is true that a third party doesn't stand a chance of becoming President of the U.S. - regardless of the voting system. The U.S. is a two-party nation. That is not abnormal. Humans eventually boil everything down to two options: us and them, black and white, liberal and conservative...
You are correct in pointing out that there is easily more third party representation in Congress. I feel that the third party representation in Congress justifies the electoral system. While the country as a whole hasn't backed a third party candidate, small parts of the population may be represented in Congress. I feel that is how the founding fathers designed the system.
Disclaimer: The following paragraph is my opinion and I have yet to find someone who isn't offended by my opinion that the President is the least powerful person in government.
If you research the founding fathers, you will find that they were against political parties. That is why it was initially designed so that one party could get President and another could get Vice-President. But, it doesn't end there. The President, over time, has become a figurehead. What power does the President really have that isn't controlled by Congress? Appoint a judge to the Supreme Court? Not without Congress' approval. Declare war? Not without Congress' approval. Cut taxes? Not without Congress' approval. Veto Congress? Not without Congress' approval in the form of not overriding his veto. When it comes down to it, the President has the power to decide how to decorate the White House - as long as it is within the budget set by Congress. Kainaw 21:39, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Regardless of what was intended, the very structure of the original Electoral College made it almost certain that the President and Vice-President would be of the same party. The mistake was giving electors two votes. If they had only one vote, no political party would ever run two candidates, because they'd split their vote; therefore, the President and VP would always be from different parties. But when electors have two votes, it's in a party's best interest to run two candidates, and encourage electors to vote for both of them.
Actually the ORIGINAL E party system guaranteed opposing candidates in the president and vice presidential positions because everyone was running for president. Under the new system (12th amendment) you absolutely guarantee that there will be one party in the white house.

[edit] Pros and cons

On January 2, User:Susurrus spun off the "Pro and Con" section to the article Pros and Cons of the U.S. Electoral College. Then some user (I don't know who anymore as they didn't write anything on the talk page and the comments in the history went to the Great Bit-Bucket in the Sky) wrote that they would delete this article because its content was duplicated in this article. Now I want to make it clear: the content was not duplicated, because Susurrus had removed the content from this article when it was spun off. Nonetheless, even though I noted the fact that the content was non-duplicative on the talk page for "Pros and Cons of the U.S. Electoral College", I found today that the article had been removed. Therefore, I have restored the "Pros and cons" section to this article.

— DLJessup 02:25, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Does EC favor small or large states?

The article states several times that the EC favores small states. It's certainly obvious, since each state gets 2 senators regardless of population, that small states get more electoral votes per capita. I don't think it's obvious that it follows that voters in small states have more voting power. In fact, I don't even think it's true. Campaign strategists don't seem to think it's true either if you take ad dollars per capita or campaign stops per capita as any indicator. If it is true then it needs some mathematical justification.

Don't try to draw a relation between campaign financing and voting power. Money goes to areas that are not clearly Democrat or Republican - not to areas where there is the Electoral Vote/Population ration is higher. Kainaw 01:00, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In a winner-take-all voting system, votes per capita is a poor measure of voting power. To illustrate this, imagine that the U.S. consisted only of the 14 smallest states plus California and D.C. Even though California would have the fewest per-capita electoral votes, it would quite obviously have the greatest voting power: The other 15 states wouldn't matter at all!
According to the Banzhaf Power Index, California voters are the most powerful and Montana voters are the least powerful. (But note that this assumes that all 51 "states" are competitive.) DanBishop 02:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Restored "Pros and Cons" again

Hello, I just restored the "Pros and Cons" section, which had been deleted without comment again on March 9 (why delete it?) -- 84.58.45.131 23:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when a few references have been added to the article. - Taxman 18:28, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Squeezing Pop Vote

Although I have great respect for the original author of this section (Pgva), I thought that this should be removed because it is not a proposal with much popular or political following. All of the reforms suggested are unlikely to take place, but at least there are people would favor things like a direct vote and the Maine-Nebraska method.

[edit] Squeezing a direct popular election out of the current system

A popular election could occur without amending the constitution. If a sufficient number of states chose their electors by national popular vote rather than state popular vote, then a national popular vote would occur in practice. For example, the eleven largest states, controlling over 270 electoral votes among them, could guarantee that the presidency always goes to the winner of the national popular vote, merely by changing state election law. Constitutional objections to a state choosing its electors by national popular vote include that doing so would create an interstate compact without the consent of Congress (which is unconstitutional) and that no state may allow other states to choose its electors.

-- (unsigned post by Dinopup at 00:16, 1 July 2005 (UTC))

[edit] I am adding squeezing the back to the article

The arguments you present are not compelling. I work in politics and I had never heard of the "drop 2" proposal before reading it in this article. If you think squeezing the popular vote is too complicated for the average voter to understand, imagine the blank stares you'd get when discussing a drop 2 appportionment. Additionally, I have read the Constitution and none of the sections pertaining to the selection of electors would seem to prohibit a state from selecting its electors based upon the electoral results of another state [i.e. I suspect it would be illegal for Vermont to cede to New Hampshire the right to choose its electors, but I can find nothing in the language of the Constitution that would prevent Vermont from basing its appointment of electors based upon the results of the election in New hampshire--hell, the Constitution doesn't nessiscarily prohibit a state from selecting its electors based on a coin toss]. Beyond the fact that if a number of individual states pass laws awarding their votes to the winner of the national vote, would not seem to be an interstate compact--and that there is a very good chance the Supreme Court would deem it a political question and thus decline to hear it. Finally, even if it is an interstate compact, who is to say that Congress would not assent to it? 51 Senators and 218 Congresspersons would be far more likely to approve a drastic alteration to the manner of elections than would 67 Senators, 290 Congresspersons, and the legislatures of 38.

Congress has been ruled 'hands-off' in any control over state's laws about choosing electors long ago in a round of decisions by the Supreme Court (I'm sure it is mentioned in this discussion or article somewhere because I remember looking it up and pasting in the case names, dates, and summaries). So, the federal constitution has little to do with it.
I will get to the primary problem with this 'squeezing a popular vote' in a moment. I just want to point out that state's constitutions govern how electors are chosen. There are many differences between the states. No state allows the citizens of that state to be completely ignored. In some way, their vote is a primary factor in choosing the electors. Congress did not force this upon the states. The people forced it on their own state governments. South Carolina was the last state to take the popular state vote into consideration - before that, it was just the state representatives who chose electors. The point - the people of the state help forge laws for their own state.
Now, the concept of having a state choose the electors based on a national popular vote is a great idea if humans weren't involved. It is not reasonable in any way to think that a state will send it electors that oppose their own state's popular vote. For example, Washingtion DC has been voting around 80% Democrat since I've been watching the elections. There would have been riots if the electors sent to vote were going to vote for a Republican just because the Republican got more national votes than the Democrat. There has been riots for far less. Some of the worst have been caused by giving people what they want (look at the riots following each equal rights bill passed by Johnson).
The only way to get a popular vote is to actually have a popular vote. Trusting the states to do it one by one is the same as trusting them to get out of the 19th century and adopt the metric system. So, this idea of squeezing out a popular vote is not a realistic option. Kainaw 1 July 2005 01:50 (UTC)

As the author of the disputed section, I can appreciate the arguments against including it in the article, but remain somewhat troubled by its removal. The principle reason I added it was to disprove the widely-held belief that a federal constitutional amendment is required to achieve a popular vote. Enlightenment begins by describing an alternative, something for which Wiki seems ideally suited. Efforts to distinguish this proposal from those requiring constitutional amendment on the basis of likelihood of enactment seem unwarranted - all are pretty unlikely. Even so, certain features favor this proposal on those grounds: the 11 largest states, acting in self-interest, may adopt this proposal without the consent of D.C. or the smaller states, whereas a constitutional amendment requires some small states to concur contrary to their interests; whereas an amendment would be revolutionary, the large-state proposal is evolutionary. Certainly it has no less a meaningful political following than proposals such as "drop two", "weighted direct voting" or "popular vote bonus method". In my view, the evident bias preferring those as-unlikely alternatives to this one is neither the proper standard by which to select material nor consistent with the principle of disseminating information on which Wiki is based. --Pgva 08:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I obviously wasn't clear in the purpose of my comment. I wanted to make two points: 1) I wanted to reinforce the idea that it is currently unconstitutional for the federal government to step in and force states to choose electors by their rules. 2) Point out that the primary problem has to do with trust between the states. Logistically, it is very simple for a state to choose electors based on popular vote - but they have to trust other states to do the same. I did not intend my comments to be read as "this is unlikely, so abandon it". I intended it to be "here is the primary problem that I see. The section should focus on solutions to this problem since the rest of it is simple". The end just my opinion - the only way to have a truly popular vote is to have a truly popular vote. I don't trust politicians to agree to do anything that isn't their best interest. Kainaw 17:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not see why states necessarily have to trust one another to adopt the proposal. Just as individual states evolved from legislative selection of electors toward state popular vote in the 19th century, each state can decide for itself to make a national popular vote the basis of its choice. At least eleven large states (or any combination reaching 270 EVs) would be needed to guarantee the result, but there is nothing stopping any of them, acting individually, from moving in that direction. One could argue, I suppose, that in so doing a state might deprive victory to the candidate of its choice on a given occasion, but that would simply be the cost of favoring a national popular vote -- the outcome in such a case being the same as if a national popular vote were held by other means -- and this proposal requires fewer states to go along than a federal constitutional amendment. Stepwise progress is progress all the same. I do not see why parochialism is any more problematic for this idea than for those requiring a federal amendment, and this idea at least has the advantage of only requiring a few of those states most disposed to it to go along. --Pgva 09:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The issue of trust is actually a moot point, as the wording of such law would most likely state that the law would not take effect unless enough other states laws did so. Thus, if a critical number of states defected from such a plan, the manner of election would be returned to the status quo (additionally, this is why such a plan would not be an de jure interstate compact). Furthermore, the issue of people being upset that their state is casting votes for another candidate is not an issue if people believe that they are participating in a national popular election. ggrzw

That suggests yet another advantage. For example, with every precinct being able to influence the result of a close tally, the incentive for abuse and manipulation could cause widespread corruption or even major instability: imagine the chaos of Florida 2000 multiplied nationwide. Without predicting such an outcome, still we must admit the possibility of unintended consequences. In contrast to a constitutional amendment, under a state-based approach the responsible legislatures could simply exercise their freedom under Article II and repeal the plan should deleterious effects result. --Pgva 09:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

WHATS THE POINT OF VOTING WHEN YOUR VOTE DOESN'T COUNT? THE ELECTORS' VOTES COUNT! -- 68.100.61.171 02:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It is obvious that you did not read the article. The electors' votes are based on your vote. If you are not in the plurality, then they don't side with you. That doesn't mean your vote doesn't count. It was counted. There just wasn't enough people voting with you. --Kainaw (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

In light of the 2 March 2006 addition of the Amar Plan (which is a concrete example of "squeezing a popular vote") and in particular, removal of the incorrect statement "changing the system requires amending the Constitution", it is reasonable that this paragraph remain out of the article. --Pgva 23:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help

Help !!! I think that the start of the article is wrong, the people don’t directly elect the representative to the electoral college !!! I understand that the representatives are designated after Election Day, but I don’t know exactly the mechanism. I remember that in Florida elections years ago was also possible the Florida electors can be designated by the Florida parliament.... please, if somebody has more knowledge about this, make the article more exact!!!

(Prepping an early morning cranky reply...) You obviously didn't read the article. In most states, the people do directly elect the representative to the electoral college. In fact, the electors' names appear on some ballots. As for the Florida fiasco - parliment didn't just randomly pick some electors. There were Republican and Democrat groups. They ruled that the people elected the Republican group. As for how states choose their electors - the article clearly states that it is a state-by-state process. Remember, the United States is a Republic, not a Democracy. The states have their own laws to protect themselves - including how they choose their electors. In fact, South Carolina used to have the state government elect the electors, ignoring the people (who were considered too uneducated to vote - therefore a danger to themselves. But, after they were allowed to vote, they elected Strom Thurmond over and over - so, make your own decision there.) Kainaw 13:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Colorado

"If it had been successful, it would have ended Colorado's status as a swing state. Instead of candidates vying for all nine of Colorado's votes, they would be going for one, assuming the most likely outcome of a 5-4 split one way or the other. However, it is unclear if this amendment would have been upheld as constitutional by the state supreme court (due to its post-ex-facto nature), in any case." The issue here is *SUCCESSFUL*. This is due to the post-ex-facto nature of the amendment. It is entirely possible that it could never have been implemented. What do we mean by success? If we are using this hypothetical as an example, I think it is important that we discuss why it quite possibly always will be hypothetical. Dobbs

I'm very confused by your addition to the article. Wasn't the likely legal challenge to the amendment based on the fact that it would have taken effect the same day it was passed and been used to allocate electors chosen the same day? So if it had passed and been challenged on thse grounds, it might not have gone into effect for 2004, but could have been in effect for 2008. Or am I missing something? TMS63112 18:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The Colorado amendment specifically stated that it would have gone into effect for the 2004 election. Section 1(f) states: "In the strongest possible terms the voters of Colorado declare that, ... is intended to apply retroactively and thus determine the manner in which our state's electors are chosen and our state's electoral votes are cast for the general election of 2004." Since this amendment didn't pass, it is moot. http://www.lawanddemocracy.org/pdffiles/COamend36.pdf

Also note, it is "ex post facto" not "post-ex-facto" if you wish to match the US Consitition's protection against ex post facto laws in article 1, section 9. see for example http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/ bsdimp Fri Nov 3 19:50:08 UTC 2006

[edit] Appointment of Vice President

I think there's a slight problem with this paragraph:

It is unclear what would happen if a President has been selected but the Senate remains deadlocked on a Vice President past Inauguration Day. On the one hand, the Twelfth Amendment specifies that the Senate should choose the Vice President, and it does not admit of a time limit on the selection process. On the other hand, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment allows the President to nominate a Vice President if a vacancy should occur.

It is true that the Senate should choose the Vice President, and has no time limit on such a nomination. However, Amendment 25 section 2 says "Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

As it reads right now, the Wiki article seems to indicate that the President can unilaterally appoint a VP without any consent. Any qualms with changing this?

If you feel the article is unclear, feel free to edit it. The Presidential appointment of a VP still requires confirmation of both the Senate and the House, so it would hardly be unilateral. The President would have the flexibility to pick someone other than the top two electoral college finishers though, so he/she can pick someone that Congress is willing to approve. NoSeptember talk 15:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I don't follow the article's following contention under Maine/Nebraska. . .

Why is it said that a state would feel it would be in its best interest to abstain from the Maine/Nebraska system? I don't understand. So they could speak with one voice? MondoManDevout 10:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is sort of a "one voice" issue. For example, if a state has 6 electors and it gets split 3 and 3, then that state doesn't matter. But, by giving all 6 to one candidate, they do matter. Small states have less of a chance of splitting the vote. From my limited knowledge, Missouri is the most prominent state that is assured to split with two heavily democratic large cities and plenty of heavily republican rural areas. As a state gets larger, the chance of a split gets worse. Look at California. Stereotypically, the whites and blacks vote democrat. The hispanics and asians vote republican. California would split just about in the middle and have no real effect on the overall election. But, there are those who argue that it should do so. Just because a few more democrats get to the polls while the republicans are at work, why should the entire state go democrat? (sorry, but I had to throw in the implication that the hispanics and asians are doing all the work in CA - I've spent too much time in LA and Palm Springs.) --Kainaw (talk) 03:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, another thing is that it would never get past voters with the majority acting rationally. Say it was proposed in New York. Democrats should rationally oppose it, considering that a Republican would not likely win the state without a Reagan style landslide that would mean it wouldn't make a diffence anyway, and in any other case, give some electoral votes to Republicans. Republicans should support it for the same reason. Because Democrats make up a majority in the state, such a proposal should fail. The same thing would happen in a safe Republican state such as a Texas. For swing states, neither side would have something to lose in that way, but they do lose their swing state power that makes their electoral blocs desirable. -Nichlemn 07:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ghastly problems with this article

I've done a bit to tone-down some of the "opposition camp" tone of this article, but the article needs some serious reworking to get rid of the overwhelming anti-EC POV...a POV that's built into the very structure of the article. I realize that many people regard WP as ruled by "commie leftists", but the fact that this has become a FA in its current incarnation is the first time I've actually been forced, somewhat unwillingly, to conclude that there is, perhaps, good reason for that belief. This is, in a word, appalling... Tomertalk 07:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Nomenclature

Is it not traditional for articles of the Constitution of the United States to be numbered according to Roman numerals?

Such as: Article II as opposed to Article Two.

You worded that interestingly, but either way's fine. "Article II", "Article Two", and "The Second Article" are all acceptable. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 21:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schlesinger's Proposal

If the states would each lose 2 electoral votes, why wouldn't D.C.? 128.194.23.58 04:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National Popular Vote

The reform proposal making waves at the moment should probably be added. The "National Popular Vote" movement would see the law changed by state legislatures to give all of their electors to the winner of the national popular vote, with the proviso that the provision take effect only when and if enough states have enacted equivalent legislation such that a majority of the electors are chosen this way. This proposal has been making progress in Colorado and California recently. --tilthouse 18:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non Sequitur?

"The Federalist Papers suggest that it was commonly assumed by the Founding Fathers that most Presidents would be selected by the House of Representatives, and the order of the articles of Constitution, in which Congress is established in Article I and the presidency in Article II, supports this view."

That strikes me as a total non sequitur. The order of the articles may indeed suggest legislative supremacy, but I do not see how that supports the idea that the Founders assumed that the Electoral College would mostly fail to select the winner. Such an outcome is certainly agreeable with the concept of legislative supremacy, but I do not see that as being sufficiently relevant to mention. Any thoughts? --Pgva 08:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Having received no comments, I removed the clause in question. --Pgva 03:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Utah & DC changes

A bill has passed a house committee to add 2 seats to the House or Representatives.[1]. One seat would go to Wash DC, giving it a full voting House member. The other seat would be available as a normal congessional seat, and currently would go to Utah. This bill would give Utah 1 additional Electoral vote, and would increase the total number of votes to 539. (So 270 would still be needed to win). I think this should be added to the article, but I'll someone more familiar with the article to add it.


[edit] List of States by Number of Electors

I just added number of electors to "List of U.S. states by population", and linked it to this article. Would it also make sense to include the list of states by electors here? It would work just to use the format:

5 Electors
Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, West Virginia

samwaltz 12:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rename Squeezing section

I think Squeezing a direct popular election out of the current system should be renamed. It is very long, and seems informal to me. I have a few suggestions:

  • Implementing a National Popular Election without changing the Constitution.
  • Bypassing the Electoral College
  • National Popular Vote through Interstate Compact
  •  ??
Any thoughts?Juneappal 21:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that "squeezing" requires its own section. Nor do each of the other proposed reforms. One short section entitled Reform Proposals seems like a good option, and a separate article on Electoral College Reform might not be a bad idea. --Pgva 02:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm - I like the idea of a separate article, but I think this proposal does deserve it's own section, since it is actively being pursued across the country.Juneappal 03:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The entire article needs to be reorganized. I can't tell what the organizing principle is, particularly of part 4. Part 4 (inaptly entitled "Electoral Votes") seems to be a laundry list of complaints about the Electoral College ending with reform proposals. You are correct that the Amar Plan is being actively pursued, but I would prefer to include only actively pursued ideas in a Reform Proposals section, leaving other alternatives to a separate article on reform, so I don't see our ideas as mutually exclusive. --Pgva 04:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
but I would prefer to include only actively pursued ideas in a Reform Proposals section, leaving other alternatives to a separate article on reform, I like it.

[edit] Reorganize Article?

The current structure does not make much sense to me so I would like to propose reorganizing this article as follows. 1 - How The Electoral College Works. 2 - History. 3 - Controversy. 4 - Reform Proposals.

Please offer your opinion on this idea. --Pgva 19:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Definitely needs something. Looking through the current section (cryptically named) Electoral Votes it seems that it's a mix of explanation of the system, arguments in favor and arguments opposed. So I like your idea - I might flesh it out like so:
  1. How the Electoral College works.
    • How states currently assign electors
      Maine, Nebraska method goes here - TN in 1790 does not
    • What those electors then do
      faithless electors would go in here
  2. History
    • Historical precedent for indirect election
    • Original Plan
    • Changes in the system since then
      including trivia like TN in 1790
  3. Controversy over the current system
    • Arguments against the current system
    • Arguments for the current system
  4. Reform proposals
    • Those that have been suggested and dropped, or which haven't caught on
    • Those which are actively being pursued.

Juneappal 20:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

That looks excellent. I think a reasonable approach would be to first re-arrange the existing text under those headings and subheadings, then take a look at what should be cut and added incrementally. This was a really good article not long ago, then someone did a hatchet job on it (it might be worth looking back a few revisions to see what can be salvaged - I'm not sure a reversion is appropriate at this stage though, although that is another option). --Pgva 22:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, everyone who has weighed in on this matter seems to be in total concurrence (and they all seem to be talented, clever editors) so I think we should go ahead and start in the manner you describe. I would be happy to take on the initial re-factoring, but I may not have a chance till Monday afternoon (Pacific Time) If you want to do it, just let me know before then, so we aren't duplicating each other's work.Juneappal 01:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Reorganized

Well, by gum, I just went ahead and did it. A few thoughts:

  • I commented out two long paragraphs that were duplicated elsewhere. One was a more complicated explanation of apportionment, the other covered everything from faithless electors to the Maine Method. If you are going to edit those two sections, take a look at what I left in hiding.
  • There is still a LOT of repetition. My basic method was sorting existing paragraphs based upon the principle idea they contained. Now comes the part where we strip out some of the repetition.....
  • Are there no other arguments in support of the current system?
  • I am pleased with where I got to today, but I am done for now. I would be delighted if someone took what I have done and tweaked it even more. This is not anywhere close to perfect - just much better than it was before.


Cheers - Juneappal 19:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice work. There is no hurry to add content; what matters is that the structure is set up. Contributors should now stick with this structure and avoid further re-organizations. --Pgva 17:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFJ link removed

...because I clicked through and found no relevant information. If there is some, summarize it here, then link DIRECTLY to it, not to the splash page.

[edit] NPOV?

Whoa! Just a glance at the pro/con arguments shows, to me, that this article has a problem concerning undue weight. I know, for instance, that there are a number of reasons that I am pro-Electoral College, none of which are listed here. Indeed, the reasons given here are, in my opinion, stupid. Even a little bit of research and a half-hour to an hour of writing should fix this, by checking sites like this [2], but, until someone has the time to do that... does anyone else think a Neutrality Disputed template would be appropriate for the pro/con section? --BCSWowbagger 22:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if that should be the first course of action. The sections seem more or less neutral to me, if a little weasely (ie saying "Critics say that the electoral college causes heart disease" is neutral, though weasely and needing citation, whereas saying "The electoral college causes heart disease" isn't.) I think it seems unduly weighted in part because the reasons con are a little repetitious. All of them could be re-written.
Anyway-I had thought the Neutrality Disputed was for places where editors can't agree, not just for places where no-one has done the full research. (Is there a template that says "This section may appear unbalanced because it is incomplete - please help by ****************"?) Juneappal 06:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Gosh, I don't know. I'm still pretty much a newb. Fortunately, I have an hour to spare, so I'll see what I can do to make the problem go away. --BCSWowbagger 22:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, first run-through of the Arguments Pro/Con section:

I killed the "disenfranchisement" references and eliminated the extra prose. To "disenfranchise" means to prevent one from voting. Just because one loses the election does not mean he/she was disenfranchised. The word is oft-abused these days, and I don't blame the author for falling into that trap.

Next: This section makes a ton of assertions. Maybe some of them are obvious, but I marked all of the ones that could even be remotely controversial as "citation needed".

Eliminating the electoral college would not allow American nationals living in the unincorporated territories to vote in Presidential elections. Elections would still be determined by people living in those territories that are full members of the United States: states. I deleted the "anti" argument related to that.

I plan to do a second run-through of this section, where I might find some of those needed citations, check the two "pro" arguments for assertions etc., and will actually add some of the material I researched. That will be later. Maybe tonight, maybe tomorrow, maybe Monday. Comments on what I've done so far? --BCSWowbagger 01:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that's edit #2 in the bag. We still need citations on the first part; I'll see about that. I tried to add in opposing rebuttals in the pro arguments, but, to admit my bias, I am a proponent of the EC, so Be Bold in editing that stuff. Also: we're over length at 42 KB. Should we split off the pro/con into a new article? Comments? --BCSWowbagger 02:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I adjusted the corrupt bargain phrase. No historical evidence exists that the corrupt bargain actually took place - it was an assumption by Jacksonians and made great propaganda for the next election. Of course, I'm open to discussion. Ezratrumpet 14:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arguments against section: NPOV?

In the section arguing against the EC, every point is followed up by a rebuttal. No such rebuttals exist on the arguments for the EC. --Jfruh (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I thought that might be because the arguments for the EC are laughably stupid and incomplete, but that's just me. We should add rebuttals to the arguments that we are going to add. Speaking of which, I now have another free hour.--BCSWowbagger 00:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I would argue against adding rebuttals to anything, and removing the rebuttals already there. The heading of the section is "Arguments against..." There's no need to present it as a dialog. Fully formed arguments in favor can be moved down to the "Arguments in favor of..." --Jfruh (talk) 01:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Further, I think it would be appropriate to remove completely any arguments for or against for which we can't come up with citations. I disagree with BSCWowbagger on some of the points he added. If this was a high-school civics class, I would love to engage him on the topics, but it isn't, and my opinion on the topic really doesn't matter. Both the "for" and "against" sections are riddled with weasel - if we clean that up, the need for rebuttals may be obviated.Juneappal 03:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Both fair points. Still being a newb, I'll go with whatever the rest of you decide. However, I think we can definitely come up with citations for most of the arguments listed with a little more research, which is my first priority next chance I get. --BCSWowbagger 05:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Links to other language Wikis

I just linked this entry to the German page "Wahlmann" (Elector), which also links back to the English page "Elector". The German page has not split the US Electoral College from the general page on Electors, and as such, has extensive info pertaining to the US system in its general section. I'll be checkingout a few other languages soonish. samwaltz 16:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Direct Election Via Interstate Compact

"By far, most of the electoral votes that would be a part of this compact, so far, were pledged to the Kerry in 2004 and Gore in 2000, and much of the interest in this plan has grown from the dissastisfaction with the 2000 election. But the plan could backfire: for example, if it had been in effect in 2004, when John Kerry lost both the "national popular vote" and the Electoral College vote, and Kerry had managed to win the Electoral College vote by winning Ohio, and nothing else changed, then this plan would have handed the victory to Bush, who won the "popular vote" handily."

That seems POV since dissatisfaction with the 2000 election could be based upon the failure of the popular vote winner to be elected, not simply on the failure of the Democrat candidate to be elected. Only in a partisan sense could the plan "backfire". Thoughts? --Pgva 08:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, only in a partisan sense could it backfire. But the biggest backers of it, by far, are states that vote Democratic every election for 20 years running, who are pissed that their guy lost in 2000, and are looking for ways to make sure their guy doesn't lose again.
You may disagree with that, but it's evident when you hear them talk, and when you see who it is that's doing the pushing for this. But, of course, it can't be proven very easily; I wouldn't mind a softening of the language, but it's important to note that Kerry would have lost under this plan (if nothing else changed) had he won Ohio and the normal method of electing electors, and that it is mostly Democrats pushing it (even in the states that went Republican in previous elections), and that it could quite easily hurt the partisan interests of the Democrats. Have you got a better way to say all that? It's folly to pretend this is not a plan primarily from the "left" -- whatever their motivations, which I am convinced are mostly still being partisanly pissed at Bush for 2000 -- and it is important to note the potential ramifications for the people primarily pushing it. Pudge 14:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you think that it is "pretending that this is not a plan primarily from the left" to omit the information given because it is simply not relevant and essentially entails advocating for a particular interpretation of the reformers' motives? Is it not entirely self-evident that either party could be disadvantaged depending on the circumstances? --Pgva 09:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Pgva on this point. The backfire statement clearly implies partisan motives by the reformers. (Which may or may not be true, but either way is not provable.) It is entirely obvious that any election could be affected in either direction based on this proposal -- citing individual elections that some reformers might have disliked the results of under this proposal servers no purpose and is not NPOV. kenj0418 14:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
How are the potential ramifications of the plan not relevant? That ... simply doesn't compute. I don't know where that's coming from. As I already said -- did you miss it? -- I am perfectly open to reworking the language, but the ramifications are absolutely relevant. And no, Kenj0418, the ramifications are not at all obvious to most people. Maybe to you and me, but that's not interesting; almost everything on this page is entirely obvious to me, and the page has no reason to exist by that standard. :-) Pudge 18:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I said that the information given (i.e. about the voting patterns of states in the 2000 and 2004 elections) is not relevant. Its purpose is to advance a particular point of view concerning the reformers' motives. Once that is excluded, all that remains is the perfectly obvious fact that either party could be helped or hurt depending on the circumstances (misplaced here since the subject of partisan advantage is not otherwise raised). --Pgva 10:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"Even if the electoral vote count fell short of 270, a large enough bloc (say 150 votes) could still be such an overwhelming boon to a candidate that winning the popular vote would be crucial. However, this concept could work in other ways: for instance, if states representing 270 electoral votes voted to give their electoral votes to the electoral vote winner, or even another proposal such as one mentioned above."

I don't think that this should be mentioned here. The proposed interstate compact does not include the possibility of the count falling short of 270 since it would not go into effect until sufficient states signed on to guarantee that number, and other potential uses of the concept aren't under serious consideration. Hence, removing the paragraph seems appropriate to me. --Pgva 19:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph was removed. --Pgva 05:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"In 2004, when John Kerry lost both the "national popular vote" and the Electoral College vote, and Kerry had managed to win the Electoral College vote by winning Ohio -- assuming nothing else changed -- this plan would have handed the victory to Bush, who won the "popular vote.""

This might not be the best example since it relies on a hypothetical situation. In my view, a far superior example would be the 2000 election in which the proposed reform actually would have reversed the outcome in favor of Gore. I suggest using that as the example instead. --Pgva 19:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

There being no comments, I made this change. --Pgva 05:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I made no comments because this has been discussed to death and I deemed no further comment necessary. Your addition has the effect of restating the obvious, which is subuseful. Pudge 17:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Yet isn't the principle of the national popular vote winner prevailing over the electoral college winner clear enough that any example would restate the obvious? What special insight does a hypothetical example (2004) offer as opposed to a real one (2000)? To me, the hypothetical is no more useful than the other and has the disadvantage of being a "what if" scenario. Though I disagree with you on this point, I'm content to leave the two examples as they are now. --Pgva 00:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Methods of choosing Electors

One of the changes in the modes of electoral selection took place in the twentieth century but has been generally overlooked. Statewide selection of Electors by popular vote, which was called the "General Ticket" in the early nineteenth century, was different from the method in use today. Until the early twentieth century, the ballot showed the names of the Electors. For example, in order to vote for James Monroe, a voter had to vote for one or more of his candidates for Elector.

In the early twentieth century, a new mode of electoral selection emerged. Instead of casting votes for individual Electors, the choice was consolidated into a choice among slates of Electors. This is called the "short ballot." Chronicler3 14:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

South Carolina used that "General Ticket" system at least as recently as 1976. I was notarizing absentee ballots for out-of-state students during that year's election, and noticed that on the S.C. ballot the names of the presidential candidates did not even appear; voters had to vote for one or more individual electors, whose names were listed under their respective party names. It was even possible to split your ticket, voting for some Democrats and some Republicans. Bruce Tindall 23:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

According to Leip General Ticket was last used in Vermont in 1980 [1]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/n/i/Talk%7EUnited_States_Electoral_College_deb1.html"