Comments on: Electoral College

By: Election Hijinks @ Ales Rarus

Election Hijinks @ Ales Rarus — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 14:08:10 +0000

[...] September 2nd, 2004 by Funky Dung USAToday has joined the New York Times in highlighting the nightmares involving the electoral college. This piece is more informative and less biased than the previous. Remember the 36-day drama over Florida's hanging chads and butterfly ballots? [...]

By: John Thompson

John Thompson — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Article II section 1 clause4
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

By: h2

h2 — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Currently, there are no federal elections in this country. Even general elections are subject to state and county oversight; the feds only get involved (and grudgingly so) when problems arise (i.e. the 2000 debacle).

By: theomorph

theomorph — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

I agree. It makes no sense at all to spread these things over months. We have the same problem out in CA, where our primary votes mean basically nothing.

And the EC should be scrapped. Supposedly, it gives small states a bigger say in the elections, but that only makes sense if you are thinking of the federal government as elected by the states instead of by the people. Americans believe in popular elections, though, so we ought to have them. This is an old argument that is unique to American politics, because we have always tried to keep State governments from being administrative districts of the Federal government.

Also, instant runoff voting with ranked votes should be standard all across the U.S.A., too. That's the only way a third party could ever break into the system, I think.

By: h2

h2 — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

I always resented that the good choices were gone by the time the primaries rolled around to PA too, but you know it would be a death struggle to get all of this in the hands of the feds.

I'm not even sure how it would bump up against the whole "states' rights" issue yet.

By: Funky Dung

Funky Dung — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

I don't think my suggestions would interfere with states' rights because federal elections are a federal responsibility.

By: John Thompson

John Thompson — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

It's a really tricky issue. You'd have to ask a lawyer and really examine article II and the twelfth amendment (at the bare minimum) to figure it out for sure.

What they could do is say that under the power from article 1 that all congressional elections must use a certain system, and then provide this system to the states, but make that aid contingent on them adopting a new method of selecting hte electors.

It's bullshit, but it would work.

By: John Thompson

John Thompson — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Just to clarify who runs elections:

Article I Section 3 clause 1
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

By: h2

h2 — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

That said, I'm not suggesting popular elections are an inherently bad idea; just that these changes would represent huge legislative and constitutional shifts from the status quo. But if anyone wants to start the movement, I'd be on board with it…

By: Funky Dung

Funky Dung — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

What about presidential elections? Under whose authority and oversight are they?