Eliminate The Electoral College!

Eliminate the winner-takes-all system of voting!

Agreed. Move to direct election. We have the technology. The Electoral College was great when we all rode horses or walked. It's outdated.

Agree. This would end the redistricting debates and lead to a more representative voting process. 1 american = 1 vote.

Is attempting to do this. Basically they have gotten several state legislatures to say they will vote for whoever wins the popular vote. When enough states sign up they have 51% of the electoral votes going this way-the legislation goes into effect.

My personal attitude: why wait? even if only 1/4 of the electoral votes were tallied this way, it might make a difference.

Yes we had this in the original declaration but took it out after the first few meetings along with term limits, balanced budget amendment and raising the retirement age. The National General Assembly will have to vote on the final list but we will vote on a list of suggestions!

Michael P. WG Facilitator

I like this not least of which because it is very easily understood and I believe it could be readily embraced by large numbers of people we haven't reached yet.

Essentially our system is set up with a bias toward extra power to small states. So a place like Wyoming with many more sheep and cattle than people gets just as much of a voice in the Senate as New York or California. This bias has been mirrored in the electoral college system though I can't think of what minority rights it exists to protect at this point.

The Electorial College is not needed in this day and age, and undermines the true spirit of a democratic vote. Remember the election of 2000.

This should be an added plank.

The electoral college is what makes candidates have to work with the entire country, you *need* those swing states. Otherwise red candidates would only be in red states, and blue candidates in blue states, and it would fracture the country more than it is.

With the current distribution, it would end up pitting the 'cities' against the 'rural' even more than it is.

The Electoral College has long outlived its usefulness. We are no longer a union of "states" (for any definition of "state" besides the peculiar use in "USA"). Each vote throughout the country should count equally.

Let's learn from other countries!

I brought this up in my thread on other countries and the lessons we can learn from them. This is from http://www.accuratedemocracy.com/d_intro.htm

Merits of Proportional Representation
Some merits have been mentioned: PR improves the accuracy, fairness and legitimacy of elections. In the North Carolina case, 4 PR districts of 3 reps each would tend to elect 9 or 10 whites and 2 or 3 blacks.
PR can lessen regionalism because some conservatives can win seats even in the most liberal cities and states.

Women usually win more seats on PR councils than on councils elected by older rules. The U.S. and England, for example, use the ancient plurality rule and only 10% of their reps are women. In contrast, the oldest democracies in Europe use PR rules adopted in the last century and 30% of their reps are women. Nations that use both rules elect more women by PR than by plurality.

Why? Because most parties nominate some women in each PR district to attract particular voters. A party that offers an all-male slate of nominees looks corruptly sexist. But one man campaigning in each one-winner district does not look as sexist. A PR party's slate also may reveal any ethnic or religious bias.

In a multi-winner district, a woman is not seen as running against a man or against an incumbent. She is likely to be seen as running for her issues and policies.

Women in some PR countries considered starting their own parties. Under plurality rules, new parties divide a side and lead to certain defeat. But PR promptly gives seats to a new party supported by a large minority. This reasonable threat forced the old liberal parties to decide that political experience was not as important as gender balance. They dropped some experienced men to make room for women on their lists of nominees. And they won. They are now incumbents with experience, power and allies.

Inclusive rules elect a broad variety of reps and thus invite a wide range of candidates and issues, attracting a great turnout of voters -- Australians see 90% vote compared with the USA's 50%. Turnout is high also because 83% of the voters help pick the winners.

(The quota for five majority winners is just 50% of each district and thus 50% overall. So at least half of U.S. votes are wasted on winner surpluses or on losers; they do not affect the results. The share of votes needed to win a Senate seat in Australia is only 16.7% for each of five seats; 5 × 16.7% = 83.5%. So in Australia, five ballots out of six are “effective”. That means it turns one of the voter's choices into a rep. High turnouts prove that Australia's ranked ballots are easy and worthwhile.)

Turnout for many U.S. primaries is only 20%. Most voters ignore primaries. But later, many feel the two finalists offer little choice. Indeed, in the “safe seat” districts drawn to favor the liberal or conservative party, there is no choice; that party's nominee is certain to win.

Some forms of PR combine the primary with the general election: Each party offers more nominees than it can elect and voters in the general election decide which nominees are best. A liberal rep must compete against similar reps and challengers for the favor of liberal voters. This lets voters have real choices.

elCid wrote:The electoral college is what makes candidates have to work with the entire country, you *need* those swing states. Otherwise red candidates would only be in red states, and blue candidates in blue states, and it would fracture the country more than it is.

With the current distribution, it would end up pitting the 'cities' against the 'rural' even more than it is.

Under the current system candidates don’t work with the entire country. They only work the swing states. I live in Texas and I can’t remember the last time a real Democratic Presidential campaign came through. The may stop by in in order to win the nomination but after that they know they way my state will vote and don’t waste much time or money trying to turn the tide. My vote for president has not counted since I have been legally able to vote.
But don’t start talking to me about proportional representation either, this is simply more of the same. And rational people don’t vote straight party.
RCC

I'm not exactly clear on this. In a pure democracy the majority wins. In an electoral college, they can override the majority and vote however they want. They also cast all their votes for the same candidate which nullifies all the votes cast for other candidates. Is that right?