This is close to the correct answer. I'm not sure that IRV would be the best system, but any system in which voters rank their preferances (rather than just vote for one candidate) would be much better than the current system.

You could argue about weater it should be instant run-off, borda count, Condorcet (my preferance), range voting, or some other system, but it seems clear that any of these would be better than the first past the post system that we use.

Any state could use one of these systems to alocate their electoral votes. (They could still give all of their votes to one candidate to preserve the power of their voting block). This wouldn't require any constitutional changes. The "problem" is that this would make third praties viable, so the two parties in charge won't let this happen.

I think there are some states in which this could be done by ballot initative, so those would be the best places to start. Unfortunately, in my state, ballot initatives are often ignored.

Please to give more info for those of us at work who are cut off from the outside world?

That's a good point, but it doesn't really address the issue at hand, on which is better popular vote or electoral college. The thread is should the popular vote be meaningless? Is it better than the electoral college? And why or why not? IMO it doesn't make sense to have the winner get less votes in a nationwide election for POTUS.

I completely agree with this post. I'm still looking for someone to convince me that the EC is better than going by popular vote. So far the best anyone has done is damn, imagine if we had to recount the whole nation, which isn't a great argument IMO.

I have one or two minor nitpicky things. 1. I don't care about some parliamentary system because this has no likelihood of ever happening in my opinion in the U.S. I do believe we may see the electoral college significantly changed in our lifetimes.

2. Seems weird that 50.1 vs. 49.9 is super close and the loser gets nothing...I agree. To me it seems weirder that 50.1 and 49.9 can happen in our current system (or something along that nature) and the guy with the bigger margin loses. At least the guy with more votes is still winning, even if it is a vote or two...he still got more votes.

I think popular vote would also increase voting turnout, which might be a great argument against it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method

But the post I was replying to was already off of that issue. Saying that XYZ would have won under a popular vote doesn't address wich method is better, either.

IMO it doesn't make sense to have the winner of the world series get less runs. OK, so what? Is this just a debate about aesthetics? I like tacos imo.

This is only "weird" because you're looking at the wrong scoreboard!

One of the biggest beefs I have with the electoral college is how it concentrates pandering to swing groups even more. The popular vote will be no means eliminate it, but it should reduce the problem. I suspect that there'd be considerably less protectionist rhetoric in the current presidential campaign if the states adversely affected by trade weren't disproportionately swing states (and the workers affected disproportionately swing voters).

No, it exists because the 13 colonies that banded together to form the U.S. were supposed to be (and were at the time) almost completely autonomous and the smaller ones wanted to minimize the population advantage of the larger ones.

Again, I realize that currently the popular vote doesn't matter. That isn't the issue. Does it make more sense to go by popular vote? Is it a better system than going by the EC? I understand the point about past popular votes maybe being different...but that still doesn't get to the issue at hand. Does it make sense to have a democratic election where one person can get more votes and lose?

Smaller states don't have enough influence as it is. We need to return the Senate to state legislature appointment. Tyranny of the majority is far too rampant in this country.

In the US the 5% party would still wield some power, overriding vetos and passing amendments. And even if representation isn't 100% correlated with power it is still clear that it has a higher correlation than the current system in the US

This is silly, no one is saying that the 5% should dictate policy, but that they sould have an influence. If 45% of the populace supports x, 44% supports y and 11% can go either way the policy will be changed enough so that > 50% of people want it (regardless of where they come from). The alternative is to have the 45% automatically win because the 11% are not represented.

The biggest reason to scrap the electoral college is because it gives voters in some states more power than voters in other states.

Example:

California: Population of 36,553,215, 55 Electoral votes = 664,604 people per vote
Arizona: Population of 6,338,755, 10 Electoral votes = 633,875 people per vote
Oklahoma: Population of 3,617,316, 7 Electoral Votes = 516,759 people per vote
Wyoming: Population of 522,830, 3 Electoral votes = 174,277 people per vote

Each vote cast in Wyoming is almost 4 times more powerful than a vote cast in California. As you can see, no vote in any of these states is equal to any other state. What that means is that the concepts of equal representation and "one-man one-vote" do not exist when it comes to Presidential elections. Individual votes in certain states simply count more than others.

There is, of course, a simple way to do away with the unequal representation that the electoral college creates, and that is to get rid of it and go to the popular vote. Whether that ever happens in our lifetimes, we shall see.

This is why you see the candidates making several stop in Cheyenne. They're desprate to get those valuable Wyoming votes.

Two other factors are also critical in "voting power":

a) The "swinginess" of the state - how close the state is likely to be in a close election
b) The size of the state

Arguably, (b) is more important than malapportionment for all but perhaps the smallest states. For instance, if there was a single state (or a bloc of states that made a pact) that had over half the electoral votes, it would have 100% of the power; the remaining states would be completely irrelevant. A large swing state has plenty of power. Say California was a swing state and you had the choice of investing resources there or in five smaller swing states. If you managed to go from slightly behind to slightly ahead in the five swing states ,it might mean you pick up one of the states for +11 EV or so. But if you went from slightly behind to slightly ahead in California, you'd pick up all 55 EVs.

If states wanted to abuse the electoral college, they could potentially try for some kind of pact to maximise their power. If California, Texas and maybe some other smaller solid GOP states did a deal to give the winner of all those states to that single candidate, it would turn them into one mega swing state that would gain the vast majority of resources and favouritism.

Keep in mind that getting rid of the EC would completely change campaign strategy. There would be no such thing as a "swing state." Instead, Obama would campaign primarily in Illinois, big cities, and urban areas. McCain would campaign heavily in the south, Arizona, TX, and in heavily republican areas like Salt Lake City, Boise, and Orange County, CA.

Both candidates will campaign heavily in Florida and Iowa. They would avoid these areas without the EC. Also the EC is good for states like CA and FL. If natural disasters were to happen in either state on election day, they'd still be guaranteed to keep their electoral votes, even if people didn't vote because of earthquakes, hurricanes, etc.

This is the most bizzare argument in support of the EC I have ever heard. lol at the notion that Californians are better off under the EC.

For all the people arguing against the electoral college, do you reject the concept of state's rights completely? Do you also think we should do away with state lines and just have one big country with 1 all power federal government?

Why do these need to be correlated? The electoral college's existence or abolition changes the power of states very little, since it elects a purely federal politician. Short of having some or all electors chosen by the state legislature (like was common in the 19th century) this is really a red herring.

Electoral college is flawed and was not intended for 2 party system. Really should be changed for something less stupid.

I was NOT making a case FOR the electoral college. My point is that striving for most votes would completely change Presidential campaign strategies.

However, there would have been complete chaos and madness in 2000 without it. There were "voting irregularities" in several states in 2000. Yet, it was narrowed down to four counties in Florida that Al Gore cherry-picked to contest. Bush conceded the other states because they wouldn't have made a difference without Florida. Okay, there. That IS a case for the electoral college. Perhaps not the best case, but one nonetheless.

It's still hard to argue against most votes wins.

The biggest losers in the EC are states that are growing quite a bit, and the biggest winners are the states that are shrinking.

Texas gains three electoral votes.
- Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina and Utah each gain one electoral vote.

- Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania each lose one electoral vote.
- Ohio loses two electoral votes.

Notice the biggest underrepresentated states are all Red (Florida is the only oen close)
The overrepresented states are either Blue, or very borderline (exception Louisiana- mainly due to Katrina)

It's also quite amazing that half the people in the US live in 9 states:

CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, PA, OH, MI, GA.

Makes perfect sense to get rid of the electoral college.

Ironically, the supreme court stopped the recount in florida in 2000 since only a few counties were getting recounted, thus those in other counties did not count as much. Well, then they should ban the electoral college system on the same grounds.

Seems like this would be a goldmine for FoxNews. Since so much of the FoxNews coverage in 2008 was "ZOMG, voter fraud," imagine the outrage that could be generated at the prospect of stealing/phonying up votes in every major city in America.

The world series winner should be determined by who gets the most runs over the entire seven games, not who wins the most games, right?