How to fix the electoral college / presidential voting system

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
i was thinking in the car about how we can fix the existing presidential system in such a way that will (1) Eliminate the system in place that allows a president who the majority of the voting public did not wish to take office to become president (eliminate the notion of a third candidate "stealing votes", and (2) Remove the current complete impossibility of a third-party candidate becoming president



here is the deal. the whole system seems pretty obvious, so maybe it has been reviewed and rejected...if so, why? ok, here goes:



- On election day, the citizen chooses two candidates for president of the USA, a first choice (here on referred primary) and a second choice (here on referred to as secondary). The voter has the option to only vote for one candidate if he/she chooses.



- County Level: Each county in the country will tally their votes in the following way, leading to a "winner" for each county: If a candidate receives majority of primary vote, that candidate wins the county. If no candidate receives majority vote, than either the candidate receiving the plurality of votes and the candidate receiving the second plurality will win the county. Next, all secondary votes for the top two candidates are added to their total vote talley. The candidate with the majority votes wins the county. To restate, secondary votes are only considered when no candidate earns a majority vote.



- State Level: All counties in a state do this, and if a majority of counties (probably a weighted majority, depending on the county's population) have declared a candidate as their winner, that candidate wins the state. If no candidate receives a majority vote, then a similar system to that used to determine each county's winner is used: the two candidates winning the most counties are considered potential winners of the state. The winner is determined by redeclaring the winner of counties which were not one by one of the top two candidates. Votes within these counties are reprocessed by analyzing those ballots with the county's winner as first choice and one of the two top state candidates as the second choice. These ballots are added to the number of primary votes the top two state candidates received in that county. At this point, the state candidate with the most votes (but not necessarily the majority) wins the county. This process is completed in all counties which were originally won by someone who did not win the most or the second most counties in the state. After this reassignment, the candidate receiving the majority of the state's counties wins the state.



- National Level: The exact same process as the state level. If a candidate wins the majority (26 or more) of the states, that candidate wins the presidential election. If there is no majority winner, the states with winners who did not match one of the two candidates receiving the first and second-most states nationally are reanalyzed. All counties within these states that did not declare one of the top two national candidates as winner of the county are reanalyzed using the same technique as used in a similar situation at the state level (described above). After redeclaring all counties in the state to one of the top two national candidates, the state is redeclared, this time to one of the top two national candidates. The candidate receiving the majority of state votes is declared president.

----



So, that is the system. Please ask if I am unclear about a particular point; it was harder than i expected to describe the system. As a note, the system could exist at a strictly national level or a strictly state level, simply by applying the "county" rules to the larger jurisdiction. point being that this system is in no way bound to the county/state/national level system.



-Do any countries use a system similar to this? Does it have a name?

-Does the system have any flaws that I am overlooking?



It seems that everyone wins: no longer will a 3rd party candidate "steal votes" from a major party candidate and no longer will 3rd party candidate votes be wasted as they are in the current system...the system will allow people to vote for who they want to be president, not who they think will win.



phew, that was tiring to write.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 47
    dmband0026dmband0026 Posts: 2,345member
    Easier way: (and a lot less typing too)



    (Even though it would mean that Bush would have lost the last election and Gore would have been president...that would have sucked)



    Popular vote.



    Your idea would work, but it just overcomplicates things. Keep it simple.
  • Reply 2 of 47
    faust9faust9 Posts: 1,335member
    One of the problems I see with your proposed system is that a lot of power can be granted to low population states. Your proposed system boils down to a presidential contender only needs to win 26 states thus trips to CA, NY, PA, OH, MI, NJ, GA... would not be required. A presidential contender could woo more (both in the number of states and in the metaphysical sense of ideology) small states who's constituents share the same ideology thus choosing the president for the nation with again the minority of votes cast.



    A lot of people don't like the current system, but it serves it purpose. I limits powers in that small states can't force an agenda onto the majority of the population. It also forces presidential candidates to campaign for the votes in all states because small states are still given a voice and can swing an election, but not truly determine one.



    If I were to alter the electoral college, I'd change from the current system of a candidate wins all electoral votes is said candidate wins the majority of cast votes in a state to a system where districts cast their electoral vote IAW the outcome of the popular vote. This system would give more of a voice to third part candidates and individual voices.
  • Reply 3 of 47
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Popular votes coupled with some way of primary and secondary vote (to allow third and fourth candidates a chance).



    Or better yet: Parlementary system.
  • Reply 4 of 47
    faust9faust9 Posts: 1,335member
    Popular vote is also impractical because small states would be forgotten about. Why even concern yourself with Wyoming when the majority of the population resides in CA, NY, FL, OH, MI, GA, TX, and a select group of heavily populated states.



    Again, our system wasn't put in place to give power. I was put into place to limit powers. Look at how hard it is for a bill to become a law, or how tough it is to amend the constitution. The founders were afraid of tyranny and oppression thus they put up many road blocks preventing the federal government from getting any work done. If the government has trouble jumping through hoops to pass laws, fewer laws are passed thus preventing one party or group from dominating the political scene too much.
  • Reply 5 of 47
    johnqjohnq Posts: 2,763member
    Leave it alone.



    If a 3rd party cannot attract enough votes on the merit of their beliefs, so be it.



    If a person loses, you don't change the rules so you can win next time.



    If people don't understand (truly) the Electoral College then that's an indictment of our underfunded, inept school systems.



    We don't have "national" elections period.



    You can't claim the sanctity of what the Founding Fathers wrote one one hand when it suits you, and then claim "outdatedness" when it doesn't.



    Did your person win your state last election?



    If yes, good job, that's all you needed to do. You are not voting for president. You are only helping your state recommend a person for president.



    It is one-man, one-vote (popular) ? at the STATE level, which is the only level there is.



    This isn't a single country with one giant popular vote and indeed god forbid it ever becomes one.



    If "your guy" loses the election, tough. (My guy did, BTW)



    Do you want Bush et al changing the system if BUSH loses next year? I didn't think so. Take your lumps and next time win your state.



    Re independents that lose ? suck less next time.



    Now, there are things about election funding etc that need reforms but not the Electoral System itself.



    Unless we are going to be one big country, abolish states and have huge third world style elections. Yay. You think it's bad now? Wait.
  • Reply 6 of 47
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by faust9

    Popular vote is also impractical because small states would be forgotten about. Why even concern yourself with Wyoming when the majority of the population resides in CA, NY, FL, OH, MI, GA, TX, and a select group of heavily populated states.





    Huh?

    ,

    With the electoral college system, I had always figured, it gives small states less attention than deserved since a vote in a small state is less important than a vote in a big state.



    Think about it this way: If there's a single vote difference California and a single vote difference in Wyoming, where are you going to go next election to try to ensure you get that vote again? In a popular vote system, a Wyoming vote is just as valuable as a California vote. Here's a realistic example: Why are Florida votes so damn important this year? Why are Florida voters somehow more important than the rest of the country's? I'm moving to Florida before election time. Why am I suddenly a target for campaign advertising, whereas in Jersey I wasn't?



    This is ludicrous. Popular vote is fair. Having two votes is fvcking awesome because it would boost independent parties. Of the two, I expect popular voting to become a reality.



    Quote:

    from DMB:

    (Even though it would mean that Bush would have lost the last election and Gore would have been president...that would have sucked)



    Now, I hate Gore, but quite honestly I'm really upset with what has been going on lately. I don't think Gore would have reacted to the terrorist thing so childishly. . . but that's another thread.
  • Reply 7 of 47
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Splinemodel

    [B]If there's a single vote difference California and a single vote difference in Wyoming, where are you going to go next election to try to ensure you get that vote again? In a popular vote system, a Wyoming vote is just as valuable as a California vote.



    But there's NOT a single-vote difference between CA and WY. There are fewer people in WY, and thus fewer minds to change, than in CA. And so the candidate goes to CA, where there is a greater chance that he'll pick up those votes.



    Quote:

    Here's a realistic example: Why are Florida votes so damn important this year?



    Because FL has lots of electoral votes. And because FL can be a swing state. And because FL was the place where the Bush presidency was decided.



    Quote:

    Why are Florida voters somehow more important than the rest of the country's?



    Because people in Florida are apparently easily confused. As a matter of fact, I'm confused here. I thought you were arguing for a popular vote, and here you are complaining when you get targeted. What do you think would happen in a popular election?



    Quote:

    I'm moving to Florida before election time. Why am I suddenly a target for campaign advertising, whereas in Jersey I wasn't?



    Because NJ barely even figures in when people are working on electoral math.



    Quote:

    This is ludicrous.



    I'm not even sure what you're complaining about anymore.



    Quote:

    Popular vote is fair.



    It is if you're cool with one of these two options: Urban, industrial, coastal America determines the politics of the country OR rural, agrarian, interior American determines the politics of the country. If you're cool with Kansas or Oklahoma determining America's politics, go ahead and keep making this argument.



    Nonetheless, having a popular vote ensures that candidates will spend time ONLY in those states with the highest populations.



    Quote:

    Having two votes is fvcking awesome because it would boost independent parties.



    Two votes? And how does that help independent parties?



    Quote:

    Of the two, I expect popular voting to become a reality.



    I doubt it. If there's one thing that all democratic countries have feared, it's the tyranny of the majority



    Cheers

    Scott
  • Reply 8 of 47
    faust9faust9 Posts: 1,335member
    Example:



    Alaska--population approx. 650,000

    USA--population approx. 293 million



    %of_population=Pop_AK/Pop_USA*100%

    %of_population=650,000/293,000,000*100%

    %of_population=0.022%



    That means the total population of Alaska accounts for .022% of the US population. So, if we use popular vote, issues concerning alaska become inconsequential.



    Now lets look at electoral representation:



    Alaska--3

    USA--538



    same math as above yields: 0.56%



    0.56% is a significant increase (on the order of 25 times) when compared to 0.022% thus the electoral college gives a significant amount of power to smaller states that they normally wouldn't have been afforded. This allows smaller states to have a voice where they normally wouldn't. Also if you want to do away with the electoral college just remember that the issues affecting large states (CA is the most populous state at about 26 million people) will dominate the political scene. I don't want Californians dictating federal policies for me a resident of MI nor do I want Texans or Floridians.



    The electoral college isn't about fairness its about limiting powers. The popular vote was seen as a way for demagogues to influence government so a system was put into place to prevent that from happening.
  • Reply 9 of 47
    faust9faust9 Posts: 1,335member
    Danmit, beat to the punch.
  • Reply 10 of 47
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by faust9

    Danmit, beat to the punch.



    Nah. It was clearly a legal tag-team.
  • Reply 11 of 47
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    What Spline said.



    The small state argument is being used over and over and over again and each time I ask into it noone can give me a good explanation. I guess that some high school text book has that as the explanation and everybody just parrot that



    The current system favors swing not small states. A citizent in a swing state would get more attention (and more to say) than in a none swing state



    A candidate could simply ignore states that was a lost cause and only swing states would get the attention. What would you do as an democrat candidate if you saw this?



  • Reply 12 of 47
    faust9faust9 Posts: 1,335member
    These are the "Swing States"



    Arizona -- 10

    Arkansas -- 6

    Colorado -- 9

    Florida -- 27

    Iowa -- 7

    Louisiana -- 9

    Maine -- 4

    Michigan -- 17

    Minnesota -- 10

    Missouri -- 11

    Nevada -- 5

    New Hampshire -- 4

    New Mexico -- 5

    Ohio -- 20

    Oregon -- 7

    Pennsylvania -- 21

    Tennessee -- 11

    Virginia -- 13

    Washington -- 11

    West Virginia -- 5

    Wisconsin -- 10





    Look how many swing states are small. 5 of them have 5 or less electoral votes. That is how our system gives power to small states. States like Maine have a significant voice in the upcoming election, a voice not afforded under the popular vote system. Also, I showed some numbers to back my claims of greater power to smaller states if you scroll up a little.
  • Reply 13 of 47
    faust9faust9 Posts: 1,335member
    In the electoral system, small states have the opportunity to become swing states. I guarantee under a popular vote system, the cares and concerns of Maine residents wouldn't mean squat.
  • Reply 14 of 47
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Small states are not the same as swing states. It may be that right now but its not guaranteed so its not an universal argument. Actually it would be more logic that larger states were swingers because its difficult to sustain a homogenic population in a larger state than in a small.



    But the "fair"-arguments still stand in the current situation. Is it fair that the population of swing states have more power than that of others just because they live in such a state?
  • Reply 15 of 47
    faust9faust9 Posts: 1,335member
    The fatal flaw in your logic--"fair". our system of government was never ment to be fair.
  • Reply 16 of 47
    faust9faust9 Posts: 1,335member
    Also, I know that small states do not automatically constitute swing states, but in this case, of the 21 swing states (17 of which are already being targeted with political ads) five of them happen to be small which illustrates my point that the electoral system grants powers to smaller states, or rather limits the powers of larger states. As far as "is it fair that swing states get to decide the election?" Yes, If there where no swing states, if there where no unknows in politics we would have no reason to hold elections. As an example, I can name at lease one foreign govenrment that removed all doubts about the outcome of an election. Saddam Hussain was elected by 100% of the population because he-- a tyrant-- removed the doubt and then asserted his opressive authority. Now I'm not trying to get into the merits of our current Iraq situation, I'm just pointing out the consequences of foreknowledge of election results.



    Finally, just wait a few years and your home state will eventually become one of the swing states.
  • Reply 17 of 47
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by faust9

    The fatal flaw in your logic--"fair". our system of government was never ment to be fair.



    Fair enough My ideal democratic system is one man one vote fairness. If that isn´t the goal with the american system then let that be. As a footnote the EU "parliarment" suffers from the same drawback.
  • Reply 18 of 47
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    All this analysis and no one mentioned the "winner take all" aspects of some states as well as the gerrymandering of the congressional districts to create politically locked states?



    Solve those two easy problems and we'll be most of the way there.
  • Reply 19 of 47
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    The Electoral College system does more harm than good by artificially "weighting" states. During the Presidential Elections, the people in this nation should be viewed as a living in a single state. We are not voting as citizens of Illinois or Georgia or Rhode Island. We're voting as citizens of the United States, for the highest elected leader in the land.



    1 vote = 1 vote = 1 vote.



    I don't give a crap if California has millions more people than Rhode Island. It's irrelevant. The Electoral College makes the assumption that somehow people in different states are fundamentally different in how and why they vote. I think people across the nation are fundamentally the same in their interests for the nation.



    Don't fix the Electoral College; get rid of it all together.
  • Reply 20 of 47
    The Electoral College was originally created so educated representatives could choose the President themselves (as opposed to the incompetent masses). I think we should go back to that, but we probably won't. Given that they are now just a reflection of their constituents' votes, there is really no need for it. I say go with Popular Vote.
Sign In or Register to comment.