Talk:United States Electoral College/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 →

Contents

older edit, unsigned

(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)


Pro-Conservative Bias

This article clearly has a pro-conservative bias as demostrated by the "Losing the popular vote" section.

"In the elections of 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000, the candidate who received a plurality of the popular vote did not become president. The 1824 election was eventually decided by Congress and thus distinct from the last three which were decided without.

Proponents of the system counter that the Electoral College requires candidates to garner more widespread support throughout the Union; a popular vote system could elect a person who wins by a large margin in a few states over another person who wins by small margins in most states. The latter candidate, the argument goes, has to appeal to a broader array of interests than the former and is less likely to be a demagogue or extremist. However, the Electoral College is not guaranteed to favor the latter candidate in that scenario. In fact, given the 2000 allocation of electors, a candidate could win with the support of just the 11 largest states.

Further, there is currently no such thing as a national "popular vote," because combining the different popular votes into a single vote has serious statistical problems, and claims of the electoral college denying the "popular will" are specious. For example, voters in Massachusetts or Texas in 2000, as their respective states were sure to vote Democrat or Republican for President, were more likely to vote for a third party candidate, or not vote at all, since their vote for their preferred Democrat or Republican candidate was extremely unlikely to change the result. Conversely, a voter in Florida was more likely to vote Democrat or Republican, even if they favored a third-party candidate, because their vote was much more likely to make a difference.

Similarly, the effect might be more likely to affect one candidate than another; for example, as there was a large anti-Bush sentiment in 2004, voters in uncontested states might have been more willing to come out in favor of John Kerry, despite their vote being less likely to make a difference, as a sign of opposition to incumbent George W. Bush.

The effects of this phenomenon are somewhat known, but impossible to quantify in any close election, such as in 2000, when Al Gore had 0.5% more of the cast votes than George W. Bush, far inside the margin of error of any study. Because of the extremely thin margin, the only way to know who would have won the popular vote in 2000 would be to have conducted an actual popular vote."

Considering the time since this was posted, the lack of a signature, and no specific problems, I am removing the neutrality tag. — BQZip01 — talk 16:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible plagiarism in this article

Part of a sentence in this article (3.2.1 in the contents) looks a lot like one from one of its sources, but is not cited. Here is the sentence from the article:

"...the Electoral College avoids much of the sectionalism that has plagued other geographically large nations, such as China, India, the Soviet Union, and the Roman Empire."

And here is the one from the source The Electoral College by William C. Kimberling, found at http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf:

Such a unifying mechanism seems especially prudent in view of the severe regional problems that have typically plagued geographically large nations such as China, India, the Soviet Union, and even, in its time, the Roman Empire.

I'm not sure if this qualifies as plagiarism or not: Is it fine as it is? Does it need a citation? Also, I'm not sure if there's other similar sentences in it. Tell me what you all think.


Proposal: Delete TN Grand Divisions method

In the section concerning alternate methods of elector selection, the discussion of Tennessee's "Grand Division" method seems to me like simply a version of the electoral district method. I propose deleting the grand divisions unless there's some public outcry.

Though I don't think this qualifies as plagiarism, given the length of passage and the moderate rephrasing a citation would be beneficial, both to remove ambiguity with regard to plagiarism and more importantly to support the assertion with a citation.

Independent candidates?

I'm just slightly confused on how they work, as the article doesn't seem to address it. It says that the "parties" select the electors, who then pledge to vote for their candidate, and as a result you are really voting for the group of electors who promised to vote for this candidate or whatever, with some variations by state. But who are you voting for when you vote for an independent? Do they assign their own electors? Errick 07:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, independent candidates put up their own slate of electors in each state, as do all the minor parties (assuming they can get on the ballot). NoSeptember 08:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
He's right. Each party will typically either select their elector candidates in the primaries or just outright create the list of elector candidates they want. The actual key thing in this though is satisfying the State laws to actually get your elector candidates' slate on the ballot. Foofighter20x 12:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Confusing Article

I wanted to know why some U.S. Presidents won (like George Bush) without getting the majority of votes from the people. I found that there is an electoral vote and a popular vote in the U.S. and that it is the electoral vote that ultimately decides who will become President. But as to why and how so, I couldn't get it from this article. It's not helpful at all. >_< Berserkerz Crit 17:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

People talk about the popular vote like it exists, but don't be fooled. There is NO popular vote for president. The Elector College is all that counts. What's refered to as the popular vote is just historians and news organizations simply adding up the total popular votes for elector candidates within each State to come up with a national total. It's simply just a big game of "What If..." The "Popular Vote" is only a footnote to the Electoral College and means NOTHING. Hope that helps you out! :) Foofighter20x 12:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The founding fathers were afraid of the majority, and wanted to make sure that responsible elitists could elect a president that the majority didn't want. This is a feature and not a bug. It was intended to be that way. These elitists want the majority to be irrelevant. J2Thomas 14:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
They were afraid of a charlatan who could bamboozles the masses and trick them into electing him. This added one additional layer between the people and the Presidency. The majority certainly isn't irrelevant, but the rights of the states as sovereign entities is also balanced in as well. In short, the electoral votes aligned with the number of members in the House accounts for the popular vote while the 2 additional votes per state coincide with the number in the Senate. This makes for a delicate balancing act between popularity of the people and the support of enough states to carry through the election thereby balancing states rights and popular opinion. Anyone who thinks the majority is irrelevant in elections probably has an axe to grind (from my experience, it's usually those who think Bush stole the election from Gore in 2000). — BQZip01 — talk 19:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

removed POV paragraph

This paragraph was removed for being WAY too POV and innaccurate anyway (there is no such thing as a district of Wyoming. If someone wants to move this to a controversies section, go ahead, but it doesn't belong in the general knowledge section.

It has been argued by advocates for statehood for the District that Wyoming has a smaller population than Washington, D.C. and therefore deserves fewer electors. However, opponents note that Houston, New York City, and Los Angeles each have vastly greater populations than Washington, D.C. and no dedicated electoral votes at all. These cities do, of course, have their population count in the total for their state and thus give their state more electors.

BQZip01 07:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, the top section of the article - Electoral College mechanics - should not have any discussion about what anyone thinks or proposes to do with the electoral college. It needs to explain as best as possible how the current system works, nothing more. The comment right above this section does point out the importance of first explaining the mechanics before we can discuss advantages and disadvantages lower in the article. NoSeptember 08:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I looked at the top section as it appeared on the day this article was a the Today's featured article, and it reminds me that we should look at previous good versions to help keep the current version up to quality (at least the top section which should be a neutral presentation of how the college works). NoSeptember 09:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

New Target

This is my target article for repair this week. I'll try to bring it back into an NPOV position over the next 6 days one section at a time starting in about 8 hours doing this one or two sections a day. Post here and let me know what you think as I go. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lostinlodos (talk • contribs) 19:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Lack of National Mandate

In addition to the 19th century cases cited in the article where the Presidency was won without a national mandate, the same was true in both 2000 and 2004. It would have been equally true if Gore or Kerry had won. Bush won without the Northeast, the Upper Midwest or the West Coast, and Kerry or Gore would have won without the South or the Interior West. I feel strongly that this recent regionalism should be addressed in the article - I personally am a Democrat, and the sentence or two I added (that Overacker removed) may have been seen as unfavorable to Bush - that was not my intent - I simply wanted to include that EITHER outcome would have been highly regional, in a manner unprecedented in recent history, and I am amply supported by the election results (availble from the US Federal Elections Commision along with other sources (all ultimately traceable to the Federal Elections Commission - look at www.270towin.com for a simple graphical presentation of the results of any Presidential election ). 2004 was the clearest example of regionalism, because Kerry won New Hampshire (completing the Northeast), but lost New Mexico (losing the Interior West completely). In 2004, the dividing lines are so stark that Kerry won three contiguous blocks of states (two if you count a common lake as a border, because Pennsylvania, New York and Michigan border Lake Erie), and Bush won one contiguous block - neither one took a state surrounded by states the other took. Looking back, Clinton won a smattering of "conservative" Southern states (Arkansas, Louisiana, among others) in both 1992 and 1996 in addition to the states a Democrat often takes, Reagan won a huge national mandate including even Massachusetts, and Bush Sr. won several New England and mid-Atlantic states, along with California. All of these recent elections (along with every other election since 1924) showed much less regional division than 2000 and 2004. 1924 showed the South voting as a bloc for John Davis, while the rest of the country elected Calvin Coolidge without the South. 75.68.252.96 17:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC) Dan Wells

{{confusing}}

I have given up on trying to understand this article. It is tough to read and uses too much unexplained American terminology for which I need to read whole new articles, sometimes even wikilinks to these are not provided.--Konstable 07:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Your concerns would be better addressed if you could give us specific examples. Foofighter20x 02:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

should there be a part of just bad things?

I have added a section on the article before but it was deleated, so I wana see what other people here think. I have researched this topic alot and have found many bad things about the electoral college like the fact that because of the electoal college our president has been totally different from who we actually chose. (I got the info from http://www.panix.com/~levner/dvm/whats-wrong-with-the-electoral-college.html) So if you have time just put a little something here on if you think we should have a section on the bad things about the electoral college. Jampend 13:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)jampendJampend 13:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"because of the electoal college our president has been totally different from who we actually chose" The method by which our President is chosen balances the rights of the states and popular opinion. The person we "actually chose" is the person in the White House. If you disagree with the method by which the President is selected, then that should be your tact.
PLEASE use spell check before posting. — BQZip01 — talk 04:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention that too many people look at the Electoral College from the wrong perspective. It's design by the framers was intended so that the Office of the President was the broadest representation of regional factions throughout the US. It's why they placed the absolute majority requirement on both the standard method and on the provisional method of the House having to select a Pres if no clear majority is reached through the normal operation of the college. Also, after viewing that page, most of the arguments against are addressed in the article. Foofighter20x 03:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe in the start it was meant to be a good thing but if you look back over the years not many good things have come off of it. Its taking away from the fact that majority is supposed to rule! I mean look at the last election, Al Gore got over half a million more votes then Bush but because of the electoral college Bush is president right now. Now I'm not saying that there is no good things about electoral college I'm just saying that if you look at the record alot of bad things have come out of electoral college.Jampend 13:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Majority is not supposed to rule. This is a fallacy in American politics. If you will note what I stated before, the electoral college balances the rights of the states (sovreign entities) with the rights of the people. This is why we have a House of Representatives and the Senate. A law must pass both a majority of the people and majority of the states. By simply going with a majority of the people, the most populous states have disproportionate influence in the elections. The majority of people is not the only requirement for becoming a law; you must have the majority of the states too; the electoral college is in keeping with that requirement. In recent history, those who oppose the current electoral college are almost exclusively
  1. Bush haters
  2. Liberals
but I don't understand: if you propose eliminating the Electoral college because the reasons you state, why aren't you also pushing for the Senate to be abolished? It is simple: you hate Bush more than you have logic. But that's just my opinion. — BQZip01 — talk 15:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Please be civil. Thanks. ~ UBeR 03:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Lol ok so I dont like bush so sue me, but thats not the main reason why I'm against the electoral college. And when you say majority isn't supposed to rule then thats going against what alot of what the whole reason we elect a president, because that means that we the poeple get to choose our own leader. If majority is not supposed to rule then it's the same as if we were back to kings and queensJampend 16:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't the same. Kings and queens are not elected in any manner and have absolute authority. The President is limited in his authority. The people get to choose their leader (the president), but the states also have rights as sovreign entities (as exemplified in the Senate). The electoral college is a balance between the two. Majority opinion has also been overridden by the U.S. Supreme Court (an unelected body!) in numerous court rulings.
Our founders did not want rule by popular opinion in the first place. There are checks and balances within the US Gov't. This is one of them.
In addition, the candidates know this and must campaign accordingly. To argue that anyone "should have won" by popular vote is disingenuous since the popular vote is not the standard by which candidates are elected President nor by which the standard to which they campaigned.
You argument seems to be strictly an opinion. Unless you have a counterargument to this fact and documentation to back it up, please refrain from espousing opinions on this page. This is for discussion of this aritcle only, not a soapbox.
Concur. If anyone here wants a good insight into how the Framers intended the federal government to function, go here and download the article from this website http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=957933.
And Jampend, as these other guys have additionally said, majority rule is a misnomer. The reality is majority governance with minority rights, the latter rights being the more important of the two.
If you really want to understand how the Electoral College works, look at the 1960 World Series. How do you win the World Series? You triumph by winning more games than the other team. It's not about who gets the most runs over 7 games, but who wins the most games. If it were just based on runs, then the Yanks would have blown away the Pirates 55-27. But the Pirates took the championship 4-3 by winning more games. That is: the Yanks had a few blowout wins, but the Pirates had more, consistent wins.
Now, imagine if certain WS games winners were awarded points for each Series game they won instead of just a single tally. Additionally, imagine some games were worth more points than others. Imagine that, and you should start to grasp the concept of the EC. The idea was to have the winner and next President be person with the widest consistent support across the most regions (i.e. states).
Another thing: WE DON'T VOTE FOR PRESIDENT! (How many times am I going to have to say this on this discussion page?) We vote for electors who in turn elect a President and Vice-President. Ideally, no one should ever campaign for President as "the office should seek the man," and "the man should not seek the office," as the Framers had hoped. [1] Unfortunately, politicians did and still do seek the office, and the EC system rapidly devolved into the rubberstamp it is today.
Two more things. First, the Framers were not against factions. They did distrust them, and Washington warned about their negative impacts in his Farewell Address, but Madison, the "Father of the Constitution", saw factions for what they were: the best way to break apart groups and set them in opposition so that no tyrannical majority emerged. The more factions, the better. Second, I don't like Bush either. But I don't question his being in office because I understand why the EC is the way it is and how it's supposed to work. Foofighter20x 18:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I do not necessarily agree with your assessment that we do not vote for the President. The Electors almost without exception vote in the manner in which the rest of the voters vote. It might different from place to place. For example, if 60% voted Republican and 40% voted Democratic in a state, either all the Electors will vote for the Republican candidate, or, less commonly, 60% of the Electors will vote Republican and 40% Democratic. (Having all the Electors vote for the same candidate gives the impression of having a stronger vote, but I beg to differ.) So our votes do not count for nothing. They are an important aspect in presidential elections. I hope this helps. My regards, ~ UBeR 04:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I get your point about that being the way it works in practice. However, that's not how it was intended to work. The hope of the Framers was that every four years the people would select Electors that would deliberate and elect as President the George Washington of their time, that the office would be above politics, etc. Foofighter20x 03:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that changes anything I said. From what we can see, the Framers intended it to work without political parties, to cover both nominating and electing, and ultimately to elect a nonpartisan president. ~ UBeR 02:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Show me one place where it says that majority is not supposed to rule. Jampend 06:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, you were the one that made that claim, not us, though I agree with your assertion. Please do show us one place that says our country was set up for majority rule. (Note that Jampend changed the original phrasing from "Show me one place where it says that majority is supposed to rule.") — BQZip01 — talk 07:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
On the assumption that you meant the opposite (Show me one place where it says that majority isn't supposed to rule.), it is implicit in the construction of the EC: it isn't set up as a majority of a popular vote. In addition, our laws are not passed that way. Laws must have popular support (the House) and the support of the majority of the states (the Senate). — BQZip01 — talk 07:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the electoral college is that it J'onn J'onzz 14:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Is that it...what? — BQZip01 — talk 16:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do they even make the normal people vote if their high and mighty electoral college is just going to be like "lol no, we want Bush in office" and completely ignore the popular vote? It's such bull. The popular vote is utterly pointless, because the American government doesn't give a damn about what the people think. They just care about their precious electoral colleges. Bush SHOULD NOT be in office today, considering he LOST the popular vote. If not for the bloody electoral college, the world would be a dozen times better, as we wouldn't have had Bush crapping up the world and killing people in Iraq. J'onn J'onzz 14:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The electoral college didn't ignore the will of the people, merely the apportioned vote. I agree that the popular vote for President is pointless, but not for the reasons you stated. It is pointless because it doesn't count period. Politicians certainly care about what people think because they need to get re-elected. Why should the rules change? Do you believe the states should have no rights? As I stated above, the electoral college is a balance between the rights of the states (visibly embodied in the Senate) and the rights of the people as a whole (visibly embodied by the House of Representatives). Our entire system is not based on majority popular rule and the electoral college reflects that. Any addition to this article should be free of personal bias, personal attacks, and speculation and should focus on the problems, not phrases like Bush crapping up the world. — BQZip01 — talk 16:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Basically, yes, this NEEDS a criticism section. Because it's a HORRIBLE system.

Oh and I was going to try to reason with BQZip01, but then I realized he goes to Texas A&M University. No reasoning with an aggie.J'onn J'onzz 14:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Then state why it is horrible, not Bush sucks In addition, please refrain from personal attacks. If this was meant in jest, simply say so...and use as many words with one syllable as possible (after all I am just an Aggie). — BQZip01 — talk 16:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If everything came down to popular vote, this country would eventually devolve into a state of "free stuff for everyone!" Since the rich are a minority, they would be forced to foot the bill while the "majority" sat around on the dole. This is already the case to some degree; it's things like the electoral college which prevent the US from becoming a giant welfare state like most of Europe (which is where I suspect J'onn J'onzz hails from, based on his British vernacular). The bottom line is that the majority of citizens don't bother to educate themselves on the issues, and are thus not qualified to choose the President. This is true in most countries. People care more about American Idol or <insert the latest entertainment craze where you live> than politics. This is why we place these responsibilities in the hands of those who live and breathe politics every day. Do you have time to stay well-informed about every issue of your nation, while holding down a full-time job? I certainly don't. I keep up to speed with what I can, and elect my local and state representatives accordingly; the rest I leave to the professionals, which is as it should be. I also think many Europeans have a hard time understanding the American system, because it is foreign to them. Try to think of America like the European Union, in that we are made up of 50 "nations" that are "sovereign" but "united." Would it make sense to elect the President of the EU by popular vote? Of course not; representatives from the larger nations would tend to always hold that office. Instead, he is appointed by representatives from each member nation, under what I would assume is some sort of weighted system, like the electoral college. The problem with our system, as stated above, is the fact that it has become a "race." This was not intended; the President was meant to be chosen in roughly the same way as a Prime Minister, that is, by elected officials rather than popular vote.

    • To Jampend, J'onn J'onzz, Foofighter20x, and BQZip01: I would like to suggest that before you point out anything for or against the electoral college, pretend that the US election in 2000 happened the other way around where Bush won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote. Then build your case. This would be so much easier for us non-Americans to understand the organization of the Electoral College and what is good or bad about it without political bias. The way I'm reading this entire debate, BQ and Foo presented a good wikipedia-worthy info on electoral votes that was argued by J'onn and Jampend - but J'onn and Jampend didn't present their case with the same factual richness, neutralilty, and historical perspective. It made me think that the popular vote argument are cast by anti-Bush people who doesn't really understand American government. In that case, then I would tend to prefer the electoral college set-up more than the popular vote set-up because I would then feel it would be dangerous to have a person who doesn't know government to have the same vote-weight as that other person who has studied the cause and effect of such a vote. I would like J'onn J'onzz and Jampend to write another pro-popular-vote argument keeping the flipside of the 2000 elections in mind. The article was hard to read on this matter and I would like to see how a popular vote can be better than an electoral vote. --Anatess 18:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I guess you didn't see where I said this:
“ Second, I don't like Bush either. But I don't question his being in office because I understand why the EC is the way it is and how it's supposed to work. ”
It wouldn't matter to make the argument how you'd like it made--with Bush winning the popular vote but losing the College-- for the simple fact, as I said before, is that the national popular vote is 150% irrelevant. The system is designed to pick a winner using a method of determining who has the most consistent support, by each state, across the entire country, weighted for population. Foofighter20x 00:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Too flabby to be encyclopedic

The "for and against" arguments, which make up the bulk of this article, should be branched off to their own pages, IMO. When I pick up an encyclopedia I want facts, not debate. This page should address the mundane nuts and bolts of the electoral college, with a bit of history to explain how it came to be -- nothing more, nothing less. The current text could be cut literally in half, without losing anything necessary for an encyclopedic explanation. In fact, much would be gained by such a culling: it would crystallize the facts for uneducated readers without burdening them with rhetoric from either side (unless and until they chose to follow such links), and it would allow those editors who simply cannot adhere to WP:NPOV to have articles of their own where they could freely spout off for or against the system without having to fight each other for territory on the main page. But of course this is a problem with most of Wikipedia, I'm just picking on one article.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.244.240 (talk) May 31, 2007

I salute and agree very strongly with the above user: This article should be excised of opinion/advocacy positions related to the Electoral College. The main article should be as straight-forward an articulation as possible -- as in news reporting -- of its history/founding and rationale articulated by the nation's founders; reference to and as unbiased as possible an explanation of relevant constitutional provisions and amendments (Article II; Amendments 12th, 14th, 20th, 22nd, 25th); presidential elections in which the electoral college was perceived as a relatively significant and controversial issue (1800, 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000 and I would add arguably 1968) and a listing of the various perspectives about the Electoral College today, with very, very straight-forward, short description of the corresponding perspectives: a) retaining with zero changes; b) modifying without substantial change to the "character" of the current system -- appropriate topics could include abolishment of the office of Elector; c) substantially changing -- separate entries for a host of proposals: national popular vote plan, congressional district plan (Maine and Nebraska), proportional vote.

Dennisjaffe 17:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)DennisJaffe

Democratic Party

I believe WP guidelines instruct us to call groups and people by the name they use for themselves, and to use the names of the groups and derived words in that way also. For instance, the articles named after the epithets anti-abortion and pro-abortion are redirects to Pro-life and Pro-choice, even though partisans of one group often call members of the other group by the derogatory rather than generally-accepted name. In this instance, one could make the argument that the epithets are actually more accurate, but in the interest of civility and respect, we (Wikipedians) go with the name preferred by the groups themselves. Insisting on using "anti-abortion" in place of "pro-life" in an article--barring extenuating circumstances--is at best uninformed and at worst childish and partisan. The terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" also have the virtue of being the generally accepted ones.

Similarly, the Democratic Party and most supporters of it use "Democrat" as a noun, and "Democratic" as an adjective. I recently made some edits to correct the partisan and non-standard use of the phrase "vote Democrat", which User:BQZip01 undid. Usage of phrases such as "the Democrat party", "the Democrat candidate" and "voting Democrat" started as a deliberate attempt by some Republicans to turn the Democratic Party's name into an epithet; it has since spread to individuals who do not intend to disparage the party but are unaware that the usage is often intended as derogatory and is largely avoided by the press and the organization itself[2] (Note: I'm talking here about the national Democratic Party, not the handful of local organizations that indeed call themselves something like the "Nassau County Democrat Party". In any event, this is irrelevant as this article deals with the national parties rather than particular local entities.). The derogatory nature of the usage is sometimes subtle, but just because some do not perceive the POVness of a term does not make the term NPOV. "Democrat Party" and "vote Democrat" are shibboleths of one particular partisan group and have no place in NPOV Wikipedia articles.

In a nutshell: No one disputes the acceptability and unbiasedness of "vote Democratic" and "Democratic Party". These are the usages preferred by the organization and its affiliates itself. "Vote Democrat" and "Democrat Party", on the other hand, are intended by many as epithets and are perceived by many as the political equivalent of second-graders calling someone named Marty "Farty" and someone named Jerry "Fairy". There are at least two good reasons to use "vote Democratic" and nothing to recommend "vote Democrat".

I don't want to start an edit war, so I want to try to build a consensus that "vote Democratic" is an acceptable usage, and confirm that no consensus exists on whether "vote Democrat" is acceptable, before restoring my earlier edits. --Atemperman 17:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

article is way out in outer space, full of advocacy for leftist proposals vs. information

About 2/3 of the article should be deleted. The article is (supposedly) about the electoral college. Instead a huge portion of the article is about possible, proposed CHANGES to the electoral system. Some brief mention of complaints makes sense, disertations on the alternatives makes no sense. If you go to an article on the V8 engine you don't expect to have two pages about why the Wankle, Steam Piston, Jet and Turbine are all superior, do you?
A classic example of Wikipedia being a left-wing playground. I won't try to edit this because obviously a bunch of people are obsessed with this topic.
People, get a grip.
The Democrats can't even figure out a version of their party name that does not require weird non-standard usage. The long disertation on the topic claims that certain usages are pejudiced slang.

Google string search results:
"Vote Democrat" 347,000
"Vote Democratic" 315,000
"Democrat party" 1,050,000
"Democratic party" 4,760,000

Based on the above I would say that "democratic party" is the normal form, but could not sustain the claim the "Vote Democrat" is a pejoritive.
The Democratic Party web site is "Democrats.org" not "Democratic.org".

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.225.84.230 (talk) June 9, 2007
For one, Google searches being used to support particular positions on Wikipedia are a classic case of "if all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"--it's a facile way of getting data of some kind, but rarely is any argument made as to why this data is relevant. Related to this is that if you look at the sites that "vote democrat" returns, most of them are anti-Democratic partisan sites (well, six of the first ten, at least; I couldn't be bothered to check all million results). If anything, 63.225.84.230 (the previous, anonymous poster) has helped prove my point that "vote Democrat" is to many people, a partisan epithet.
"Democrats.org" makes perfect sense since it is the webiste of and for Democrats--it's using "Democrat" as a noun, which is standard and unbiased.
I do agree with the above poster, though, that much of the article should be moved into a separate article on proposed changes to U.S. Presidential elections. --Atemperman 20:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

A question

In the section "Electing the President and Vice President":

"The Senate votes in the normal manner in this case, not by States. If the Senate is evenly split on the matter, then the sitting Vice President is entitled to cast his tie-breaking vote."

Does this mean that Senate has total 100 votes when it elects Vice President ?

--Siyac 19:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, except in the case of a tie. Sorry I didn't see this sooner. — BQZip01 — talk 20:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Restructuring and revising

I would suggest a new structure on broadly the following lines:

  1. Electoral College mechanics
    1. Apportionment of electors
    2. Etc. (Note that although the structure here is sound, the content needs work. For example, the section of apportionment doesn't make it clear that every state automatically gets two Senators regardless of population.) Comment added by — BQZip01 — talk: Uh, the electoral college doesn't have anything to do with the election of senators. Reply Yes, it does. Your state's Electors are equal in number to your Represenatives plus your Senators, which means the EC is only partially apportioned by population. A.J.A. 20:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC) ****RESPONSE by — BQZip01 — talk**** You have it backwards. The number of senators is set in the constitution (2 per state). That plus the number of Reps= number of electoral votes in the electoral college, not the other way around.
  2. History of the College
    1. Before the 12th Amendment
    2. Between the 12th Amendment and 1824
    3. After 1824
  3. The College as political issue
    1. Critiques of the College
    2. Defences of the College
    3. Reform proposals
      1. Interstate Compact
      2. Etc.

A.J.A. 20:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

If you think it could be done better, be bold and do it! :-) — BQZip01 — talk 20:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added the fact that the Congress has the power to determine when the Electors are chosen and when the Electors vote. Additionally, I have added a short synopsis of how the Electoral College worked pre-Twelfth Amendment. I agree that a restructuring of this article is needed. --Repeal 16-17 02:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

11:06 A.M.E.S.T. Cape Cod Community College Library, David George DeLancey here,i read the information about the Electoral College ,i do understand it though i did not completely finish the article anyway it was very well understood, at first i ended up here at the talk cession and completed it , i have a few comments towards this portion of wich others have added, on april 30 18:30 it states a President does not seek office i find that strange and hard to beleive, though where it says an office seeks the President well that is sort of understanding maybe if just that was a portion of engagement i would understand it clearer because in order for a President to Hold Office he must want to do so theoredicly it is the possition that is available, i understand. this is from BQZi 001 16:47,30 May 2007 Popular Vote Should Count in short somewhere within the Electoral System though these are recomedations,.possibly, or just leave the period where it is A soveriegn is a state for it is a Bodied and or Balanced Boundery from another giving it a portion of exsistance to the term Law. Most things are assumed though considered an aknowledgement , an Aknowledgement is something that exsist's , If the Presidency is assuming the Position then it is Aknowledged that , that Position has aknowledgement to assume , if a country club was to listen to my anouncement to a public then a portion sudenly agreed with my proposal then the others whom then feel assumed and positive that it would work would concider it as an electoral or even a decision in controvercy the time of the election within their grasp would have more understanding. 11:26 a.m. e.s.t. for instence take this if i was wanting to be the President i would first want this ofcourse this is a desire many have desires though through time i eventualy think of an arangement towards the position, it is advisable that thinking about the public is a great means and sooner or later one would have to acomplish something of the task an aknowledgemnt for instance. a long time ago about 1986 i wondered why i had allways since a child wanted to be the President degreeing myself with thought and balance i came up with an idea that everyone over the age of twenty one get five hundred dollars and a sales tax of one percent and a state tax of a percentage from a paycheck towards the needs of that state and disabled persons would get ofcourse more for there needs then the fifth and last thing was the retired persons they would have to achieve a balance of funds to servive and conduct an every day procedure , then i thought of the sale now wait a moment i thought is'nt a sale what i am offering, if so then the five hundred dollars would the have to be five hundred and five dollars and five cents this would happen every month ofcourse retired persons and disabled persons get more, in all it's considered a tooling, a high office would hire a subject to pay and collect taxes now while this is being read ,it is possible that a particular party is just being like the other for instence a Republic and a Democracy if there are one hundred persons in a Ball Room cathing my anouncement though only 82 are aware of it totally then the rest would posibly be still considered a republic and a Democracy would still be of some understanding, though in a sence the allready understood would still be a Democracy wich was lets say available within a republic if this is agreed who then is recognizing it. THANK YOU I SHALL RETURN TILL NEXT TIME David George DeLanceyDavid George DeLancey 15:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I gotta say...what? There are so many grammar errors and typos within the above that I think most people are left thinking "WHAT?" Please re-explain using something close to English and appropriate grammar. — BQZip01 — talk 04:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Re-write and Re-organization of entire article

I have started to re-write the entire article. If anyone is interested in working with me on this, I have it posted on my blog at [Chronicler's Minutiae]. Only registered users may post, but feel free to post on my page here otherwise. Chronicler3 01:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I have moved forward with the re-write. Feel free to comment about it. Chronicler3 02:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding winner takes all

During the 2000 election Bush won 25 Electoral votes from Florida however according to this article Florida has 27 electoral votes. From my understanding of the article, shouldn't bush have received 27 electoral votes from Florida? Wikidudeman (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The 1990 census determined the apportionment for 1992, 1996, and 2000. The 2000 apportionment didn't kick in until 2004. (actually 2002, but that's the House, not the EC). A.J.A. 20:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
So it is winner takes all and in 2000 there were only 25 electoral votes in Florida? I have another question, Are the electors that are elected Represent specific parties? During the 2000 election were all of them republicans? Or were some of them Democrats? Wikidudeman (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The parties nominate the slates of electors, so ordinarily they would be all Republicans or all Democrats. A.J.A. 20:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
What would happen in the event of an independent victory? Wikidudeman (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Independant electors. A.J.A. 21:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I understand that, But who would select them? Where would they come from? Moreover, Why couldn't the Democratic or Republican electors simply vote for the independent in the event of his or her victory? Wikidudeman (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe that, in the states where they gain access, independents (like dem/gop) are required to name slates of electors before the election takes place, in case they win the state. The electors only get to vote if their candidate won the election in that state. BillMasen 23:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I see. Has anyone ever proposed a change to the electoral system where the actual electors are done away with and only the "votes" remain? For instance if a Democrat wins Florida that democrat would automatically get 27 votes, opposed to having individual electors who may or may not be true to the actual winner. Wikidudeman (talk) 12:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Nothing came of it, though in most states an elector can be prosecuted if they break their pledges. A.J.A. 21:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Who has made such a proposal in the past? Wikidudeman (talk) 02:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. I've just heard about the proposal itself. A.J.A. 16:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Two states have decided to permit a non-winnter-takes-all slate. Maine, and Nebraska. It's in the article. -- Yellowdesk 18:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

What I was asking is if anyone has proposed the discontinuance of all electors in the electoral college and simply give the winner of a specific state 'votes' without actually having 'voters'(electors). Meaning if someone wins Florida then they automatically get "27 votes" but without any actual electors. This gets rid of the problem of unfaithful electors and still has the benefits of the current electoral college. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think a faithless elector would actually have to cause a difference in the outcome of the election before it is ever seen as a problem. Doing away with the electors themselves would require a Constitutional change, and it's not worth the effort of that process. Electors are typically chosen based on extreme party loyalty, so the faithless elector is unlikely to ever really cause a problem. Schoop 15:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It just seems to me that it would be a lot easier for independents rather than having them round up hundreds of people to vote for them if they win specific states. Simply having the state automatically go to them if they win a majority in it, rather than having the whole electoral college process. That way there are the benefits of the electoral college without the downsides of it. Wikidudeman (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe so, but "having to round up hundreds of people to vote for them" is kinda the point of the election process in the first place. Let's face it - if you can't find 20 people in a state to pledge an electoral vote for you, are you going to get enough votes in the general election to carry the state? Schoop 16:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Probably not, But erasing one pointless process with flaws seems like a good idea to me. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
What flaws? Having humans as a buffer makes the process resilient to damage. Let's look at the United States presidential election, 1968. Early in the year, there was a real fear that no candidate would win either the popular or a majority of the Electoral vote. In that case, the House of Representatives would have had to select a President, and there was a fear that it, too, could dead-lock. This would have left the Senate choosing a Vice President who would, on January 20th, become Acting President. After all these years I can't cite a source, but I recall a post-election magazine interview with someone who claimed that a compact was formed between some Democratic and Republican electors to vote for the person with a plurality of the popular vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrmlguy (talk • contribs) 14:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I spose I can see his point. As you say, electors are chosen on the basis of extreme fanatacism for their party. They will have a long record as a dem/rep, attesting to their loyalty.

And yet, there are STILL faithless electors even for these parties. A 3rd party candidate is unlikely to have hordes of long-standing members to call on, so his choice of electors is likely to be somewhat arbitrary. He's going to get some attention seekers who are faithless for fun. He's going to get members of rival 3rd parties who want to get themselves notice. He's probably going to get people who refuse to vote for him because they don't want to deadlock the electoral college. BillMasen 23:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It is possible that third parties could nominate candidates for Presidential Elector who might not vote for their candidate if elected. However, in the history of the United States up to 2007, no person elected to cast an electoral vote on a third party ticket has bolted. The caveat: in 1948, two candidates for Presidential Elector ran on the Truman and Thurmond tickets in Tennessee. They were both elected. One voted for Truman and one for Thurmond.
Also it might be worth noting that James Michener in his book Presidential Lottery (1969) made the same argument as Wikidudeman - credit the winner of each state with electoral votes but discontinue the election of people to serve as Presidential Elector. Michener cast an electoral vote for Humphrey in 1968. Chronicler3 10:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
That's not what statisticians would call a significant sample. A.J.A. 04:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Three-fifths compromise

I agree with many of the comments above about re-organizing this article a bit. But I am a bit shocked that the three-fifths (yeah, I can't count) compromise of the constitutional convention (the slave vote) isn't mentioned anywhere. Might make the whole system a lot easier to understand. If I can figure out a logical way to add it without making the article even more confusing I will. DMorpheus 16:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's irrelevant to how the system works now. It was marginally related originally, since it was part of House apportionment, but I'm not sure there's any serious grounds to think that was a motive for choosing the College itself. We know that the Founders did not want a popular vote, and they also did not want to give the legislature a free choice in electing the executive (which, contrary to what Robert Dahl ignorently asserts, had been tried in America before the "full" development of British parliamentarianism); neither of these is especially relevant to slavery because slaves couldn't vote for Congress and wouldn't have been allowed to vote for President. Given those two conditions, some sort of electoral college is the only option left. A.J.A. 04:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
BTW, that s/b three-fifths, not two-thirds. A.J.A. 15:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Please at least find a source. A.J.A. 18:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I will gladly do so. Slavery was not 'marginally' related, it was at the heart of the system. The fact that they couldn't vote was part of the point; slave states had exaggerated representation in the electoral college. Withouth it the Presidency would not have been so dominated by slaveowners as it was pre-Civil War.
You're of course right that it is irrelevant now, but since most of the arguments favoring the system are so specious, I think it is very helpful to have it as background for understanding why the college exists at all. DMorpheus 18:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I said source, not already refuted assertions. A.J.A. 18:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Nothing has been refuted, and a source has been added. I'll add a second later on. Please remember you do not own this article. Thanks. DMorpheus 18:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Second source added and reference made to the 3/5th article. DMorpheus 16:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Interstate Compact

This more properly falls under the heading of Reform Proposals. --Pgva 16:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Interstate Compact moved from Alternative Methods section to Reform Proposals section. To explain the reasoning: alternative methods are historical or practiced currently, whereas reform proposals are prospective. --Pgva (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Amar Plan

Why isnt the Amar Plan referenced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.115.6 (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)