Why Our Current Electoral System Serves The American People Poorly
We've had presidents in this country for over 225 years. Throughout those times, there have been a majority, or at least a plurality of our electorate who have supported the party in power and an equally vocal minority or even a plurality who have opposed that same party in power. Our arguments have not always been civil. They have led to fights on the floors of legislative bodies, disputes between states, and even a war between the states. As rancorous as these disputes have been, there was always an understanding on both sides that the antagonists believed that what they were doing was in what they perceived as the best interests of their constituencies, and in most cases the country. In many instances, one side was proven right and the other proven wrong beyond a doubt {even though minorities maintained the position that failed for years and even generations}.
What we are seeing today is an aberration in the history of this great nation. It is the type of situation we have seen in third world and dictatorial nations for eons. We have an administration that has so perverted the running of a political party that the leader of that administration has convinced other officeholders that their political lives are subservient to the will of the great leader. How did this happen?
We must begin with some statistical realities. This is a nation of 340,000,000 individuals of which approximately 200,000,000 are eligible to vote. That brings us to approximately 58% of the total population of the nation able to vote. Of course, many of these non-eligible individuals are children, but they are citizens of this nation. Using the 200,000,000 eligible voters, we generally see approximately 130,000,000 people vote in presidential elections and about 90,000,000 people voting in off year elections. That translates to about 65% of eligible voters cast votes in presidential election years and about 45% cast votes in off year elections. When we look at these numbers against the population of the United States, the actual percentages of voters are approximately 38% of the population in presidential elections and 26% in off year elections. Not exactly eyepopping numbers.
It gets worse. Candidates are chosen basically by political parties. The major vehicle for this process is a primary system. It should be noted that approximately 26% of registered voters are affiliated republicans and 30% are affiliated democrats. The other 44% are registered as either independents, non-affiliated, or a member of a minor political party. Most primaries are closed and only allow members of that political party to be eligible to vote in an election. Maintaining our working number of 200,000,000 potential voters, that would translate to approximately 56,000,000 republicans and 60,000,000 democrats eligible to vote in the primary. That translates to approximately 16% of the total population eligible to vote in the republican primaries and 17% of the total population eligible to vote in the democratic primaries.
But we all know that primary elections are known to be notoriously low turnout. For argument's sake, we can take a wishful percentage of 50% participation. That would mean 28,000,000 republicans and 30,000,000 democrats, or 8 or 8.5% of the population respectively. These elections tend to be activist elections. On the republican side of the ledger, those that represent the far right dominate and on the democratic side, those that represent the far left dominate.. Winners of primary races frequently receive no more than 4% of the total vote. The reality is, however, that those who vote in those elections are the most engaged, and most fanatically committed candidates.
Now we get back to the age of Trump. Why has the republican congress become so beholden to Trump? This isn't ideology, it is fear. They find themselves in a horrendous quandary.They can't afford to alienate the Trump primary voters since they would almost guarantee that they will lose their primary. Most of them, however, are also fearful that their full throated support of Trump will be a nightmare for them in the general election. The reason for this is simple. Trump's approval ratings among voting republicans are so high that any republican candidate has to cowtow to them. Their other problem is that the president's approval ratings among independents is hovering in the mid-to-high 30s. Without almost 50% of the independent vote, republicans will be demolished in November.
This election is turning into a Hobson's Choice for the republicans. It actually isn't much better for the democrats. As long as a tiny minority of activists are going to choose candidates like Donald Trump, we are going to continue to have a totally bifurcated system that represents the smallest minority of Americans. It may be time for a national primary day where independents can choose to vote in a primary for a day for one party or another. That might give us both more mainstream and better qualified candidates.
Tags
Who is online
120 visitors
The problem I see and for now I won't look for the culprits responsible is this: Voting in this country is a 'battle zone.' We see vote 'wars' and hear rumors of other vote 'wars.' Citizens want vote 'rest.' That is, just tell them what to do on a consistent basis and shut up about it. Lordy, voting can be so involved. . . and in the end unfulfilling.
The other problem: Free speech has given this nation 24/7 talk radio where opinion commentators make beau coup dollars for their stations off deriding and destroying the power of politicians—many of who simply want a job in a town called Washington, D.C. For example, right now, in the wee hours of the morning, while millions sleep and millions are awake- talk radio continues to feed the listeners angry, caustic, rhetoric about one person or another.
It's a beast out there! Two problems I see.
Your argument seems to be about how the voters serve the electoral system poorly, not the other way around. You talk about turnout more than the actual structure of the system, which shouldn't be the case if the system needs to be fixed as your title seems to indicate. Right now, any polling is skewed due to lack of attention being paid to any primaries, as is usually the case, by voters. It isn't until we get closer to the General Elections that the voters start paying attention to the politics being bandied about. Your own numbers prove this to be true as there is always a lower turnout for primaries even in states with Open primaries than during the General Election. Frankly, we should do away with the primary system as it usually only narrows the field down to the two candidates that have the party's backing, not necessarily the best candidate for the needs of the people.
I, also, have a problem with the premise that Trump is an aberration. Trump is essentially the opposite of Obama, who was an activist throughout his life before becoming President and still remains an activist. Trump is more like a market correction in the political market. The real activist President caused more problems than he solved through ignoring his own promises while promising a lot of what really turned out to be smoke and mirrors. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize before he went to war in Syria and Libya and allowed the entire Middle East to blow up by not really negotiating an extension of the STATFOR agreement in Iraq. Then, we ended up having to go back into Iraq to fix the problem created by Obama's lack of foresight. Obama, while the economy was still stagnant, instead of trying to get the economy moving pushed for and got the PPACA passed which actually caused more of a slow down as it hurt people equally unless you were poor. The poor were helped by the PPACA because of the Medicaid expansion, which ended up paying the premiums, OOP, and Deductibles for anyone on Medicaid. This while people who were barely making ends meet were promised they could keep their plans and lower costs; both of which were lies from the get go. The PPACA ended up killing 80% of existing plans and did nothing to lower the premiums, OOP, and deductibles for those with health coverage. Anyone with knowledge of insurance could tell you that a good insurance plan has low deductibles, low OOP, and low premiums. Instead, the PPACA had deductibles of $1500 and OOP of $5000 while requiring the insured to pay at least $400 a month. How is that affordable?
So, in the end, we had the equal but opposite reaction of electing Donald Trump; because of Obama's actions and the candidate that was supposed to take Obama's place as President that many did not trust at all. The Republicans have been somewhat tearing themselves apart since Trump's election with the Establishment alternating backstabbing him and supporting him depending on the daily wind direction from the hot air spewed by Democrats.
Sounds more like what he means is the Electoral College system serves the Democratic Party badly instead of the American people as a whole. They did after all lose...
the end game is what the end game is..... the problem that I am addressing is the front end of the game.....that part which eliminates almost half of the electorate, and includes the tiniest percentage of the population. Trump is our president....he won the electoral college and that is all that counts under our system. I am not arguing that.....What I am trying to get a discussion going is on how we insure that the best and most representative candidates are on the ballot. It should be a race to the top, not the bottom.
The irony is that the Democrats continued their loss in the Senate where you cannot claim gerrymandering bolstered 1 party over the other as that is a straight-up statewide popular vote created by the 17th Amendment. If Hillary was to be President due to the popular vote, why did that not affect the Senate vote? I'll tell you why, because her popular vote win was from California and would not affect the actual Senate outcomes. This is why we have the Electoral College still; to prevent one state (California) or even just parts of a state (metropolitan areas) from adversely affecting smaller states like Wyoming. Otherwise, the smaller states would only be able to have a voice inside the US Senate.
You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
A state with a small amount of voters gets the same representation in the Senate as a state with a population of voters that is 10 or 20 or 30 times larger. That is why the Dems can with the popular vote and still have less representation.
But even so, the Democrats did not lose in the Senate in 2016, they gained seats.
So you want to continue to rectify that by having the small states have undue influence in terms of per capita than the large states do. That is not exactly an equitable fix to the problem.
Democrats are only against the "Electoral College" when they LOSE now !
When they win....no problem.
I hear that Big Lib State California is having problems with their own Legal/Illegal "Citizens?" now.
Ok..... she got those 3m voters from Cali....she also got the EC votes from them....Along with the other "popular vote", they all went to her.....She got her EC votes
So you're mad that every state has 2 senators? They deserve that. Representatives are a different story, every state has a certain amount for their population.... I think Ga only has 16 or maybe 12
Well, Cali and New York shouldn't decide just because they are most populated. Everyone in America matters, not just coastal states. I'm sorry it didn't work our for you this go round, but damn..... Everyone else in this country matters too and they deserve to have a voice
Than please accept my apology as I mistook your meaning.
Addiitonally, the primaries, at least on the Dem side for the 2016 election were a circus and showed the run of the mill Dem that the people in charge really didn't give a damn about 'Joe Voter'. They had already picked who would be their candidate, the rest of it was just eye wash. At least there was no 'fix' in the Republican nomination process-President Trump beat what 14 'established' politicians? He outsmarted them and played their game better than they did, plain and simple.
total nonsense.
People could for whoever they wanted to in the Democratic primaries. There was no "fix". Caucuses are run by the state parties, not the DNC.
John - You're ignoring the "super" delegates at the DNC national convention where the national candidate was picked. The 2016 election was rigged in that the super delegates combined had almost more power than the state delegates. IMO, the private parties that make up our two party system are a big part of the problem. They have the system rigged to maintain their stranglehold over the election process.
Really? Joe Voter. Is he related to Joe the plumber? You know....... Joe who wasn't actually a plumber. Another accepted liar from those on the right.
Sounds to me that when some people don’t like the election results they want to change the system in hopes they will get an outcome mover favorable to what they would like. I’m fine with the system we have. I much prefer the primary system to caucuses and would encourage more states to move away from caucuses but that is their choice.
I am sick to death of the media constantly covering Trump voters or "tea party" voters and obsessing over what this minority thinks.
Democrats have won the popular vote of Americans far more than Republicans so that is why we see every voter suppression tactic on earth raising it's ugly head in an attempt to skew the vote in favor of a party the Majority of Americans do not want.
The vast majority of Americans did not even vote at all.
Take those that did not vote who regret that decision and wanted a Democrat, take the actual 3 million more popular votes that actually indicate that America wanted a Democrat to win, add in the Trump regrets revenge voters, add the new young people who do not like the path of the Republican party and Democrats would have a super majority if they just come together and get out the vote.
The system gave us both Trump and Clinton,possibly the two worst candidates ever. Every poll during the election showed that we were in a race toward the bottom. This time we got Trump. Next time we might get a Democrat who is totally incompetent. My concern here is a system that is flawed, especially at the early stages.. For once we should be talking process.
If Trump actually is incompetent, why does his actions actually work? He makes promises and he keeps them. He threatens other countries and they come to the negotiating table. Neither of those things show incompetence, they both show a born leader. The only things he does wrong are boasting and foul language; neither of which are actually wrong things for a President to have or do.
Is that why he's adding 12 billion to the national debt to help out farmers that are failing because of trump's actions (tariffs?)
If Trump is doing so much "good" , why are his approval ratings roughly where they were when he took office 19 months ago?
Trump is without a doubt the most inarticulate president we have ever had.
Has this man ever written anything? I've never even heard tell of so much as a love letter to one of his wives being in existence, let alone any writing of substance. His idea of writing is a 280 character tweet in which as often as not words are misspelled or misused.
He constantly repeats a group of inane phrases "she's something special", "they are doing incredible things" etc.
He's a con man and a crook, and most of all a narcissist. Nothing to admire or be proud of.
And, you don't really understand the situation regarding tariffs. We have countries putting tariffs or other restrictions on our exports, while we have much lower tariffs and restrictions on what we import from them. What Trump is seeking is what Brazil does regarding exports and imports. If they have a 25% tariff on one of our exported goods, we put a 25% tariff on one of their imported goods. The problem is that these countries like having us having a lower tariff on their imports than they put on our exports; so they will (in the short term) raise their rates to keep the disparity. So, in the short term, we have to bolster those industries that are being negatively affected so we can get the benefits of a fair trade deal in the long term.
Funny you feel that way. That's what many Conservatives felt about Obama that he was a narcissistic con man and crook.
If trump's tariffs are so terrific, why does he have to bail out farmers?
Do you hear me saying they are terrific? No, frankly, in my opinion tariffs should exist for only two reasons: 1) reciprocity to keep a level playing field and 2) as one of two primary sources of income for the Federal government, the other being a national sales tax. I want the 16th Amendment repealed and the income tax eliminated as that does nothing but create a system of class warfare that only tears our country apart and does not really tax the rich as Democrats claim.
It is stunning that you see a comparison in the characters of Trump and Obama. Doesn't speak well, AT ALL, for you I'm afraid.
Not even Obama's most vicious enemies were ever able to compile a list of 1000,s of daily lies he told. Nor did Obama hide his taxes from the public, nor sexually assault strangers , nor cheat his investors, nor commit fraud, nor stumble bum through press conference after press conference, nor portray no grasp at all of issue after issue. Trump covers all bases - he is a policy ignoramus, illiterate of history, a very poor public speaker, thoroughly dishonest, a bully, a xenophobe, to start.
It is simple to say, "he's just like Obama". It's completely ridiculous, but hey, it's a free country.
And I am sure if asked, you would be able to produce a copy of that compilation wouldn't you?
.
Why should John bother? It's not like you didn't already know how much Trump lies.
.
Analysis
Donald Trump has said 2029 false things as U.S. president
By Daniel Dale, Washington Bureau Chief
He was the one that claimed there were "1000's per day". He made the claim, he should be able to back it up. Since his claim, just like his many others, is nothing but bs, I don't really expect for him to respond.
Don't you think you're missing the point. How many lies do you accept before you realize there is something wrong with the person constantly lying to you?
Personally I think there is something far more wrong with those who accept a liar's lies then the liar himself.
Indeed a good question. Also, the farmers don't want to be 'bailed out', the want legitimate business and contracts. They want the same business dealings they worked many years to garner that are now threatened, ir not denied, by Trumps egotistical tariffs.
And, how long will aid 'bail out' last? 6 months. A year. And then what?
"Don't believe what you see and read"
It's a temporary fix. A pacifier
That is the way I see it as well. However, I don't think the majority of farmers will buy it, as there is far too much to lose even with a temporary pacifier. I think most farmers will see it for what it really is and know that they being played by Trump. They will let their voices be heard in the elections to come.
Whats funny is that they are going to buy the surplus themselves and use it for the needy and for supplemental food programs, which the right wing hates.
Now that's using their heads
Also, that way they can write off their losses as well. Using the surplus to help the needy will get them further ahead in the long run than kissing Trumps azz. And I think they can see that at this point.
Trump will leave his mark on American history alright, but, it will not be the favorable story he and his extremist followers envision.
My problem with the electoral system is that it gives voting rights to land. Why should an "area" get more representation than others? Why exactly do we need to give some people a weighted vote with 10 to 20 times more value than any other eligible American? In this regard it could definitely be seen as giving the land under their feet voting rights. Just because Po Dunk middle of Nowheresville only has 110 residents doesn't mean each one of them should get a "20X" on their ballots. Talk about voter fraud, when any one of them votes in these rural hollars it's just like they're getting to vote 10 to 20 extra times in each Presidential election and no one seems to find this odd.
Call for an Article V convention and propose the elimination of the US Senate as that is where the voting rights of land is secured by giving each state only 2 Senators with no adjustment for population growth and then transferring those 2 Senate votes into electoral votes, since each state gets 1 electoral vote for each Representative and Senator they have (with the exception of SC, which gets 3 electoral votes despite not having a voting Representative or Senator).
I'm fine with each State getting equal representation in the Senate, they do not need the electoral college to give their constituents MORE power than any other American citizen. It's ridiculous.
the electoral college is based upon population not land. Iff it was land Alaska would have the most electoral votesd
instead Alaska has only 3 the same as the District of Columbia
The popular vote is based on population, where everyone gets one vote. The electoral college is about giving places representation. We already have that with the Senate, if a State had 2 residents it would still get 2 Senators. We don't need to duplicate this by claiming an electoral vote for every 200,000 people in one State but only give one electoral vote per 700,000 in another. This is unequal representation.
The forefathers foresaw the potential for a bunch of centrally located, and densely populated areas of moonbats (the likes of which elected, and continue to re-elect Maxine Waters) to be able to control the fate of the entire country. The current system prevents this and that is why it is the best system ever.
So you're saying that people who live closely together are inferior? They shouldn't get an equal voice as those who live on open ranges or in the back woods? Are the hollars and other low population, low education towns in the middle of nowhere "moonbat" free? Seems to me the less connected you are to society the less perspective you have for making good choices for society.
There goes the twisting again. What I said is it did what it was meant to do. Which is to prevent large group of people in one geographical location from controlling the fate of the entire country. In this case they just happened to be moonbats.
Well it seem most Democrats think we are a democracy. The problem is they don't know the difference from a republic.
Just curious .. does this mean that places like Montana and Wyoming should not have equal representation in DC because there are not 10 million people crammed into our open spaces?
I get one vote, the States have one House rep, 2 Senators thus 3 electoral votes .. now I do not live in a "rural hollar" but your comment is fascinating, when do I get my 10 to 20 extra times to vote for president?
With the electoral college, if you live in a low population rural area your vote counts far more than if you live in a densely populated city.
"The Electoral College was slapped together by the drafters of the Constitutions in 1789 as a sop to the smaller states, giving them some incentive to ratify the document. But that was an era when there was no popular vote for the election of presidents. The idea that the Electoral College would evolve into a sort of a stand-in for the popular vote would have shocked James Madison and the other drafters. Among its other vices, the Electoral College has distorted political campaigns. Candidates practically camp out in “swing states” and ignore the voters in the other “safe states” entirely. And it affects the way that issues are raised in the campaign. In years when the electoral votes of Iowa are in play, you can practically see the candidates inhaling the Ethanol fumes.
But the biggest vice of the Electoral College is its blatant unfairness to voters in the bigger states. As a resident of the largest state, California, I look at the residents of the smallest state, Wyoming, with particular envy during election season. Each vote cast in Wyoming is worth 3.6 as much as the same vote cast in California. How can that be, you might ask? It’s easy to see, when you do the math. Although Wyoming had a population in the last census of only 563,767 , it gets 3 votes in the Electoral College based on its two Senators and one Congressman. California has 55 electoral votes. That sounds like a lot more, but it isn’t when you consider the size of the state. The population of California in the last census was 37,254,503, and that means that the electoral votes per capita in California are a lot less. To put it another way, the three electors in Wyoming represent an average of 187,923 residents each. The 55 electors in California represent an average of 677,355 each, and that’s a disparity of 3.6 to 1."
I hear you. yet that is the splitting of the finest hairs... work to get California more votes if it is that important - do not take the representation away from one, because another feels slighted / disrespected …
This is why the electoral college is such a beautiful thing, my individual rights are protected in a State of 1 million .. as individual rights are protected in a State of 30 million … sincerely just curious .. had the outcome of the election been different and a 'better' (D) or even a better (R) candidate had won, would you feel the same way?
Consider 'us' low populated States as a minority … would you seriously squelch the voice of the minority in order to advance the agenda of the majority - is that not akin to mob rule? or as I am told .. what the (R)'s are doing when attempting to oppress the vote?
First off that is not true. Really. Member Obama went to all "57"states and Trump , unlike Clinton, went to most of the states, especially those states Hillary felt wrongly were secure.
Second, if the popular vote is needed, the candidates would spend all their time in the most populated states and cater to their needs and wants and ignore those of the smaller states.
You mean they couldn't or didn't add up all the votes from eligible voters?
You mean they will target more American voters in an attempt to win an election? What a novel idea? As it is they camp out in the districts that have 3 times the voting power because if you can change just one mind in Wyoming you're getting almost 4 votes.
To Color Me Free "do not take the representation away from one, because another feels slighted / disrespected"
I'm not saying to take away anyone representation, I advocate for everyone getting equal representation. Your vote should count for one, and my vote should count for one, not my vote count for one and your vote count for 3.6 just because you live in a rural low population State. The inequality already exists, no one is "taking" representation away from anyone if we went to a popular vote election. Every low population State already gets equal representation with 2 Senators regardless of population. There is no reason to further widen that inequality just because some bigots think their vote more important because they live in the country versus living in a city, we're all supposed to have equal representation but at the moment we do not.
So as far as you are concerned, the citizens of Wyoming are not as American or lesser Americans than those in NYC or San Francisco .
personally I think the biggest issue with The Ec is how the delegates are apportioned , most states are winner take all, half a state can vote for one candidate , but the other half can vote for the opposing candidate.
I will use Nevada as an example. it has 6 EC votes spread out over 17 counties so that tells me they have 2 senatorial votes and 4 votes for their representation in the house of reps .
In the 2016 election , Mz Clinton won 2 of the 17 counties, and won the popular vote. the other 15 counties voted for trump.
what that tells me is the 2 most populus counties dictated who would win all the ec votes , disenfranchising the other 15 counties votes.
And of course I think the more EC votes a state is apportioned , the more disenfranchisement happens under the winner take all rules that most states use.
Thing is it is up to the states legislatures on how they apportion those EC votes to fairly represent the citizens of their states. and it is up to the voters to let their legislatures know how they want their votes to count when the apportioning is done.
Last I knew there are only 2 states that do not use the winner take all rule, and I feel the voters in those states are more fairly represented under the EC.
As an after thought , In my state of Wyoming , it wouldn't have mattered if it used the winner take all rule or if ec votes were apportioned , it has the minimum votes allowed by law ,3, not only did trump win the popular vote here , but he took all but a single county, which wasn't even the most populus one in the state.
I see your point of view .. but you lost me at bigots …
For real "some bigots" think their vote is more important because they live in the county ..? are those the ones that live in rural California?
oh so wrong, if you change 1 mind , you only get that one vote of the total in the state, the popular vote still has to be won within the states boundries.
Direct Democracy folks forget that our electoral college system is because we are a Republic of Sovereign States.
the founders correctly understood that democracies always self destruct
Not at all, they are just fewer in number thus shouldn't get an unequal voice when compared to their populated city counterparts. If a candidate wins by 1 electoral college vote in Wyoming which flips an election the represented 187,923 voters won out over 677,355 California voters. Each of those Wyoming voters had a weighted vote and got extra representation. So by supporting this system you believe that's a good thing, that Californians shouldn't have equal representation because there are a lot of us because apparently we're "lesser Americans".
Funny, but in no way surprising, how many liberals think election fraud is a joke but as soon as they lose an election they need to change the system. What do you say we start by making it more secure by requiring voter ID?
"Now we get back to the age of Trump. "
Something WE as a PEOPLE haven't ever seen in leadership before...and Some are flat out SHOCKED !
Funny thing...….WE actually act like he does from time to time, whether we WANT to admit it or not.
Simplest way I can put it is like this:
At no time in OUR lives, have we not put our Friends in their places at times. At no time in our lives have we not called an ASS an ASS from time to time.
If one says otherwise....they are full of SHIT !
Why is it, we expect ALL our Leaders to be cordial and think cordial is always going to change things for the better, yet those same cordial leaders have gotten us in the mess we are in.
NOW....we expect and DEMAND Trump to be cordial like the "Others".
FOR WHAT ?
So we can be in the same big ol' mess we have been in for a few decades ?
Cordial doesn't work.
Yes that’s one of the things I like about him. I’m so sick of career politicians that pay speech writers to say nice things. Trump is at his best unfiltered and isn’t afraid to call a spade a spade. His wife also got thumps up from me when she wore the “I really don’t care do u” jacket.
For me the biggest flaw in our electoral system is the unlimited flow of money. When unlimited amounts can be spent with pacs and when we have loop holes where donations can be hidden, that is a major fail.
It just makes a system where the people with the most cash can make the rules.
I think all donations to political campaigns should be made public. No more dark money
It didn't work for Hilarious Hillary.
She spent double the money of President Trump, 800 million, and still lost.
I agree though that way to much money is spent on elections in advertising. They should be limited to televised debates not infomercials.
want a real surprise? pull up in any search engine the 2016 presidential election results by county and look at the map.
This is the United States not united peoples