digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at mckinney2008.com —

Green Party takes on Electoral College

mckinney2008.com — Green civil action seeks to democratize the Electoral College by enforcing 14th Amendment voter protections, names Vice President Cheney as defendant! The Green Party's national platform endorses a constitutional amendment abolishing the Electoral College and providing for the direct election of the president by instant runoff voting.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • anniegarrison, on 08/07/2008, -15/+99About time. I'd like to see them---us, actually, since I'm a registered Green---sue for proportional representation and national ranked choice voting as well.
    • rz8472, on 08/08/2008, -4/+34I agree; Instant Runoff Voting is an excellent system and will allow 'third party' candidates to be viable without all the screaming about taking away other peoples' votes. It would also help immensely in increasing voter participation, which is sorely lacking in this nation.

      • Drogoganor, on 08/08/2008, -2/+7Spot on.
      • weltschmerz, on 08/09/2008, -1/+2These are typical false claims about Instant Runoff Voting. IRV has maintained the two-party duopoly in all four countries where it has seen long-term widespread use (e.g. Ireland and Australia). In the USA, the current two-party system has enacted laws to stop any significant use of proportional representation. So if you want to get P.R., you _first_ have to break the duopoly, which IRV cannot and will not do. So you need Score Voting (aka Range Voting), or at least its simplified form, Approval Voting. These methods are vastly superior to and simpler than IRV.

        http://rangevoting.org/CFERlet.html
        http://rangevoting.org/PropRep.html
    • paradexes, on 08/08/2008, -3/+20While I am in full agreement, I have to say good luck with that. The Government is so corrupt at this point that they will make sure they do what they need to do to keep the status quo...their status quo in check. They feel strongly that if there is was a civil uprising, it would be easy to quash. And in the short term they would be right. In the long term....that is a whole other story and one history shows never works out for would be tyrants.
      • Demener, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2There is no 'would be tyrants'. Our government is committing war crimes across the globe in the name of freedom and capitalism. Most of the world hates us now because they aren't falling for it.

        If we're lucky this electoral college abolishment will make it to the Supreme Court and win by a slim margin.
    • darkciti2, on 08/08/2008, -4/+18Just because the majority thinks something is right, doesn't make it correct!

      We're a Democratic Republic, not a majority rule country!

      In the 60's, the majority of people thought that blacks and women shouldn't have equal rights. We've made a lot of progress since then. Let's not regress...

      I prefer the Green Party over the Republican Party, but let's not cut off our nose to piss off the rest of our face.
      • dexedrine, on 08/08/2008, -9/+1What is the source for your claim?
      • ZenMojo, on 08/08/2008, -6/+3Weak.

        The electoral college doesn't protect the rights of individuals, the Constitution does. You can have a runoff and still uphold the Constitution.
      • JHB800, on 08/08/2008, -1/+12Actually, no you can't. The Constitution makes no allowance for anything resembling a direct election of the president.
      • Eiknujrac, on 08/08/2008, -1/+10JHB800 is right.

        The original constitution called for the Electors to be elected by the state legislatures. The citizens were completely removed from any direct Presidential "election" process.

        Here's some food for thought though. Being an advocate for the abolition of the electoral college, I asked a friend and former constitutional law professor for an argument FOR the electoral college, and he gave me this:

        If you create a system in which the President is elected solely on popular vote, the campaigns will begin to campaign and focus their policy issues around the concerns of people that live in the large populations centers. Domestic policy will begin to reshape around the concerns of people living in large cities and people that live in rural areas will see their importance begin to fade. Small population states in the middle of the country will cease to matter, and states like California, Texas, and New York will pick our president.

        I'm not saying this argument is true, or that I believe it. However, out of the hundreds of arguments against the electoral college I have read, it is the first argument for the electoral college that has made any sense to me.

      • Origin415, on 08/08/2008, -1/+5Right now only states that are "swing" states matter. No one really campaigns in NY, California, and Texas. Why should Ohio and friends pick our president and his policies?

        I really don't understand the argument that having cities have more sway is a bad thing. They have more people, they SHOULD have proportionally more sway. Rural votes count the same amount as someone from the city, so the only way that policy will change as you say is if city voters outnumber rural voters.
    • yuanzhoulu, on 08/08/2008, -4/+6it is because of the electoral college that i didn't vote in the last election. my Kerry vote wouldn't have made any difference in the overall result, given that i live in Massachusetts and the winner for Massachusetts was obvious to me already.

      had it been direct election by popular vote, more people (including myself) would have voted in a heartbeat.
      • roddack, on 08/08/2008, -2/+2The idea of the electoral college is help prevent against demagogues.
      • azwethinkweizm, on 08/08/2008, -6/+1Even if we got rid of the EC, you're vote still wouldn't have counted.

        Bush won.
    • mnky9800n, on 08/08/2008, -4/+10I liked the Green Party, but when they choose Cynthia McKinney as their presidential nominee I was disgusted. The lady assaulted a police officer because he didn't smell her ego a mile away and then when questioned about it she tried to keep reporters from doing their job. She supports the people who say things like "The World Trade Center couldn't have fallen by being hit by an airplane, the fuel wasn't hot enough, etc." She has built herself up taking advantage of social prejudices. It is disgusting.
      • EffYoo, on 08/08/2008, -4/+4i came here to say this. Rather than field respectable and reasonable unknown candidates who have no chance of winning, they beg someone with some experience and a well-known reputation for being an egomaniacal blow hard. She gets her ego stroked and the green party gets someone who can get some free publicity because she's enough of a whack-job that talk shows will bring her on hoping she'll freak out.

        The green party is interested in little more than attention at this point. Nader had a couple campaigns that were actually viable but these days they might as well have a mighty mouse/inspector gadget ticket.
    • Treoinmypocket, on 08/08/2008, -7/+4I continue to be astounded by the ignorance on display everytime the Electoral Collage is discussed. You want mob rule by the cities? Fine. Abolish the Electoral College.

      You will immediately have a one party system. Ironically it will be the Democratic Party (which will then be anything but).
      • Origin415, on 08/08/2008, -2/+5Instant Runoff Voting encourages a plurality of parties as your vote will "count" no matter who you put as your first choice.

        Mob rule? If the cities really have more people, they should have more sway, that is the essence of democracy.
      • personalj, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2We are not a democracy, we are a republic.
    • jaxontyler, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1You're missing the main point. The electoral college was specifically made to keep the power out of the peoples hands to begin with. Why would they want to take that away?
    • garyi113, on 08/08/2008, -1/+0Who are you going to sue - the signers of The Constitution?

      BWAHHHHH - our votes should count even though we lost. IT'S NOT FAIR (feet stomping) - I'LL SUE!!!

      It's a representative democracy...get over it.
  • Bastet62, on 08/07/2008, -11/+82I just today sent in my Green Party sign up sheet with a small check included. Until our country moves beyond this idiotic two party mind f**k and realizes that it is these two parties who are doing so much harm due to their loyalties to corporations we will never have justice in this country. We must elect people who represent the rest of us - not people who represent the wealthy few.

    The electoral college is no longer necessary and was obsolete long ago, and besides, anything that puts "Cheney" and "Defendant" in the same sentence sounds really good to me.
    • Bartboy919, on 08/08/2008, -8/+2Here Here for abolishing the electoral voting system!
    • DaDrake, on 08/08/2008, -2/+4The US has a two party system mostly out of tradition. There are tons of "electorate" college countries (mainly in Asia) where they have more parties then you can name. To me, the two-party system is like the dollar bill ..... Americans are unwilling to get rid of it (or to accept dollar coins). You need a grass root effort to create a 3rd party.... not a constitutional amendment (which has no chance).
    • EffYoo, on 08/08/2008, -3/+8As long as the green party runs people like cynthia mckinney, they have no chance of being taken seriously.
    • HxChris91, on 08/08/2008, -1/+5The Electoral College was put in for excellent reasons (as articulated in the federalist papers) and is still viably supported by them today. The Electoral College is put forth to make sure that the people aren't propogandized into accidently electing a dictator. While I believe the EC is in need of a serious make-over (like proportional voting) it is still very relevant and important to our country.
      • pintomp3, on 08/08/2008, -1/+5"The Electoral College is put forth to make sure that the people aren't propogandized into accidently electing a dictator." well that hasn't worked out so well the past couple elections.
      • Demener, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1Technically the Supreme Court gave Bush 2000.
    • Bamont, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2As much as my convictions want me to agree with you, Bastet - I cannot over look certain realities of our government that are not a cause of the Electoral College.

      The Electoral College was setup so that there was an adherent shift between the three branches of government. The Founding Fathers never wanted the people to be able to vote for the President. You can read previous texts written by great minds such as Adams and Franklin and realize that they understood the mob mentality and the fickle nature of human beings.

      Now, arguably, the President became something he was not intended to be. You can blame that one on FDR. He seized a lot of power and overstepped his boundaries as Commander in Chief. It's slowly evolved to what it has become today - but again, this is not a result of the Electoral College.

      To blame the two-party debacle on the Electoral College is also faulty, because guess what - laws can't get passed without Congress. Congress is elected by the people, not by an Electoral College.

      Really, what you want to change is how government in Washington works. I completely agree with that. I think we as Americans should outlaw Lobbyists and the corporations that donate to the campaigns of people WE elect - not them. I would like to institute a party system that doesn't support only two parties. This is America - we should have more than two choices.

      However, the Electoral College certainly isn't to blame. It was put in place for a reason. The Founding Fathers did not want the entire government purposely or inadvertently elected by the people.
      • Yarmin3, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2I used to favor abolishing the electoral college but that's because I understood how the Federal Government exists today, and not what the Constitution reads. The Constitution says the Federal Government is made up of individual sovereign states and there is no consolidated cross-state representation between any state. Small states entered the union only on the grounds that there was also a house in congress where each state was equally represented and the presentment was elected by the ways of the electoral college.

        This is why the Founding Fathers set up the electoral college, not because they were afraid of mob rule, but they did indeed fear mob rule. However, this was mostly unfounded fear since they based it on stories from the ancient Greece Democracies, whose history was written in the biased eye of the upper class and whose governments were no where close to what we understand as a democracy today.

        You mentioned FDR being the first to seize power, but Lincoln was pretty much the first to change the concept of a confederated government and argue that since a majority of the consolidated nation agreed with him, that he could fulfill the majority rule and over rule the will of sovereign states that did not grant such power to the federal government. Majority rule only exists on a state by state basis.

        I don't like that my one vote counts less than someones vote in Wyoming, but if we followed the constitution, the Federal Government would play a minimum role, basically just foreign affairs, and everything domestic would exist at the state level.
  • FunkyDung, on 08/07/2008, -3/+31I prefer range voting over IRV. The Green Party should, too. http://rangevoting.org
    • muckemuck, on 08/07/2008, -1/+9The two parties would never allow that to fly nationally, but maybe if it were used locally and then in a more progressive state that has a large number of independent voters.... just maybe people would see how screwed up our national elections are.
    • Plattburger, on 08/07/2008, -1/+7They both are better than the current limited system. I think there is more of a push for IRV because it's been used more and seems less complicated - not that either is really complicated to use, only to explain the counting process.
      • weltschmerz, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1I don't know how you can say that IRV seems less complicated. IRV, in practice, causes spoiled ballots to be seven times as common, whereas Score Voting (aka Range Voting) and Approval Voting both experimentally _reduce_ spoiled ballots. And they are easier to count, and can be counted on standard voting machines with no upgrades, and can be sub-totaled in precincts. Beyond that, Score Voting will help eliminate duopoly, though IRV hasn't, even after decades of use in places like Australia and Ireland.

        Most of the nonsense people believe about IRV is due to organizations like FairVote, who routinely lie about it. => http://rangevoting.org/Irvtalk.html
    • OgonGuitarist, on 08/08/2008, -0/+6Thanks for the link; I hadn't heard of it before. I'm not sure I feel about it though. It seems range voting is more of an average of favorable/unfavorable ratings than votes. Also, what about voters who would give a candidate, or all other candidates, a 0 just to drag down their averages?
    • chaosblade77, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2In a perfect world, range voting would probably work relatively well. This isn't a perfect world though.

      First of all, the vast (very vast, probably 95% of the US population) is not interested enough in politics to know enough about each individual candidate and be able to rate them. This results in us still seeing only the two big parties, for the most part, with any chance to win at all.

      And there are also many, many ways to game a system based on averages. It's better than the current system though.
    • dylanh3, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2Great link. Thanks!

      Now, if only we could:

      1) use reweighted range voting (http://math.temple.edu/~wds/homepage/rerange.pdf) to
      2) implement proportional representation in our legislatures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_represen ...
      3) while using the voting machines developed by the Open Voting Consortium (http://digg.com/politics/Mock_election_at_LinuxWor ...

      we might actually have a chance at saving our democracy!
    • sweeneypng, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1The one problem I see with this is that it is hard to take something abstract like your approval of a candidate and convert that to a numerical value. I think that ordered preference of candidates makes the most sense.
      • dylanh3, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1For some people it would be, for others it wouldn't. For the former kind of people, they can feel free to convert their ratings into rankings by simply making sure that the ratings are all different and the relationship between the ratings accurately reflects their preferences for the candidates. The effect on the election results will be the same, regardless of what specific ratings they use.

        Perhaps the biggest problem is that a candidate's average rating is more greatly affected on a per voter basis the fewer votes they have. Thus, if Candidate A gets 10 votes, then each vote has a weighting of 1/10, whereas the 100 voters who voted for Candidate B are only affecting that candidate's average rating with a weight of 1/100. In some sense, then, the more well-known the candidate, the less each voter's rating "counts."

        However, this doesn't really raise a huge voter's rights issue because voters are allowed to vote on as many candidates as they please, so that if you happen to vote for both Candidate A and Candidate B, you are simultaneously a relatively influential and a relatively non-influential voter, depending upon which rating you consider.

        Also, in practice, most voters would probably rate at least the two to four candidates who end up with the most ratings, and these top candidates would be the only ones with a real chance of exceeding the required threshold (having a total score that is at least half of the total score of the top scoring candidate).
      • weltschmerz, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1All rank-based voting methods suffer the consequences of two of the most important theorems in all of voting theory: Arrow's Theorem and the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem.
        http://rangevoting.org/ArrowThm.html
        http://rangevoting.org/GibbSat.html

        Score Voting also dominates the alternatives using an objective metric of representativeness:
        http://rangevoting.org/UniqBest.html

        If you look at movie ratings at IMDB.com or a similar site, you'll see that millions of people find ratings to be perfectly simple and intuitive.
    • geanark, on 08/09/2008, -0/+0many of us (greens) prefer range voting
      IRV is seen as more well understood among USians

      these things take time, and niether will ever happen under the republicrats
  • Diggernz, on 08/07/2008, -8/+33Go Cynthia Go!

    As Thom Hartmann said on his coast-to-coast radio show on 22 July 2008:

    "We need two major reforms; we need electoral reform so our votes count, and we need monetary reform - we need to nationalize the Federal Reserve System."

    The general shape of the necessary reforms are already well known by people who really understand these issues well. We need to build demand for these reforms from the grass-roots up. We need to have a public open debate and democratic process to decide how to go forward.

    By raising issues like abolishing the Electoral College, Cynthia McKinney is making an important first step toward restoring genuine democracy to the people, where it belongs!
    • goombah, on 08/08/2008, -5/+6Restoring genuine democracy? You do realize the USA has never been a democracy, right? And as long as there is a Congress it cannot be one?

      And what about the little guy, the under-represented? Isn't that the foundation of the American way of government, that the rights of those who aren't in the majority are still preserved?

      Sounds like many of those here are looking at a parliamentary form of government.
    • EffYoo, on 08/08/2008, -2/+7"Cynthia McKinney is making an important first step toward restoring genuine democracy "

      lol
    • savanttm, on 08/08/2008, -2/+2I have to say I completely agree with this legal action and believe IRV or the approval system of voting are mathematically more accurate than plurality, as far as polling and voting.

      That said, I hope Cynthia McKinney has embraced reality since the last time I heard her speak.
    • IPublius, on 08/08/2008, -1/+6Goombah is right. America has never been a true democracy. We are a representative republic. The founders abhorred the true democracy as a form of government and considered it to be among the worst ever conceived. Read their writings and you may be surprised at what you find.

      Also, feel free to disagree with the founders, after all they aren't around anymore, but the 14th doesn't apply here unless blacks and other minorities aren't being allowed to vote at all. The relevant portion reads FTA "the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors". It doesn't say president. It says electors. And it doesn't guarantee your electors will win. Otherwise every losing party in American history was disenfranchised. This is a Constitutional issue. It doesn't take suing in court to fix it, it takes an Amendment. Something I sincerely hope that Ms. McKinney knows as a Representative (although I don't have much hope that she actually does).
      • govsucks, on 08/08/2008, -1/+5Logic = bewildered McKinney supporters
    • Egoist, on 08/08/2008, -2/+2Anyone who praises Cynthia McKinney should immediately lose their right to vote.

      Hell, that should be a constitutional amendment.
  • maqqi, on 08/07/2008, -1/+12A correction to the release: in the third paragraph, it should say that the civil suit was filed on July 28, 2008, not January 28, 2008. -- Scott McLarty, GP media coordinator
    • daldredge, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2Does the Green Party still support the concept of a maximum wage?
  • muckemuck, on 08/07/2008, -0/+33Also beyond the electoral college there is the matter of candidates getting on the ballot in the existing system..
    http://www.ballot-access.org/
    • PhilLesh69, on 08/08/2008, -0/+5I agree. If you are not a member of one of the two approved parties, you're pretty much screwed unless you have an enormous amount of money and a team of lawyers to decipher the different laws in each state, just to get on the ballot.

      You need 3,000 signatures in one state, 100,000 in another, and you need three state senators and a mayor in another, or you need to name the state flower and get 4 signatures in some other state.

      It was all designed to be complicated. In each state, one of the two parties created the rules, and in the end the result is that you have to be a member of one of the established parties in order to even hope to have a chance.


      It is called SHARING POWER.
      • chaosblade77, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2I think requiring more signatures in some states than others isn't an issue, as long as there is a base for those numbers. I'm thinking it would be based off of the population of the state - it would be a lot easier to get 10,000 signatures in New York than it would in Alaska.

        And, obviously, you should be required the same amount of signatures regardless of the party. Just because your a Republican doesn't mean you should only need 300 signatures whereas a third party candidate needs 30,000.
      • PhilLesh69, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2chaosblade77,

        what you are thinking would be just about right.

        HOWEVER, that isn't how it works.

        Each state has a different rule.

        Don't forget, I'm only talking about being on the ballot in the general election. When it comes to parties during the primaries, they get even crazier. I'm just talking about being on the general election ballot.

        One state might require you to get 5 signatures, and that state might have 20 million people. Another state might require you to get 15,000 signatures, and they only have a population of 2 million.

        It isn't based off of the population of the state. It is based on the rules in that state, and they are arbitrary rules.

        I agree that it would be a lot easier to get 10,000 signatures in New York than it would in Alaska. But what if in Alaska it took 4,000 signatures, and in New York it only took 1,000? Or it took 500 in Colorado, while it took 30,000 in New Mexico? Or it took 260,000 in Virginia, and only 1,000 in Pennsylvania?

        (I'm not quoting statistics, or laws or anything, I'm just asking "what if")

        It doesn't have to do with population, it has to do with the varying rules all over the 50 states, and how they have become very much arbitrary, in order to prevent all the non-party candidates from achieving a 50 state ballot.
  • mikebaldwin, on 08/07/2008, -5/+27Right on Cynthia! Until every citizen's vote counts, and every candidate is allowed in the debates, this is a rigged system. Someday we will look back at how we held elections, and realize just how ignorant the American people were to allow this for so long.
    • jerrycurley, on 08/08/2008, -5/+9Why do I get the feeling that "every candidate allowed in the debates" means "the candidate YOU want" to be allowed in the debates.

      Ifyou have zero shot in winning, you should not be taking away valuable air time from those who do have a shot.

      Seriously...where would you draw hte line? At hte joke of a candidate YOU want, or at ALL the joke candidates? Should the debate have dozens of candidates?
    • DaDrake, on 08/08/2008, -2/+7You know how to ensure fair election --- make it mandatory that you show an ID (like a driver's license). For some reason, Obama opposes this (even when there is NO fee for the licensing and volunteer programs exist for transportation to and from the DMV).

      yea.... but for some reason.... a few cities like Chicago strongly disagree with any ID check ..... yea..... odd.
    • garyi113, on 08/08/2008, -1/+0Mary Carey for president.. Heck every pornstar for prez!!
      What a debate that would be!!!
  • RANDOM667, on 08/07/2008, -15/+21"abolishing the Electoral College and providing for the direct election of the president"
    I've been saying thats what we should do ever since I learned about the electoral college.

    1. People vote
    2. Count the votes
    3. We have winner!
    This would work best if everyone were required to vote.

    The entire two party system needs dismantled.
    There should only be one party, the American party.

    If we can get our government back under the control of the people then we can all party!
    • z95headhunter, on 08/08/2008, -1/+7Requiring people to vote, what an awful idea. It would result in corruption and collapse of any form of electoral system.
    • darkciti2, on 08/08/2008, -2/+5I will die preventing you from enabling America to become a 1-party sytem.
      • heiroglyph, on 08/08/2008, -1/+4What do parties give us other than party politics?

        How about agreeing with the person who has the best idea, regardless of their party affiliation?
      • JigoroKano, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3Yeah I don't think he meant what he said. Cuba and China are examples of 1-party governments. That's not what we want. If anything we want many parties like Canada.
    • goombah, on 08/08/2008, -2/+8And there would never be any reason for a candidate to go anywhere but to the major metropolitan centers. It would only work if there weren't separate states- one big America, but no United States.

      What we need is less federal government, and more power to the individual states. Get the grassroots multi party platforms started at the state level and the nation will follow. Hey, the founding fathers held political parties with the utmost of contempt.
    • chaosblade77, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1If they made the campaigns and debates more like a reality TV show, and allowed people to send in votes with their phones, I'm sure it would be unnecessary to "require" voting.
    • balthisar, on 08/08/2008, -2/+2*Everyone* should vote? Let's become a populist dictatorship like Venezuela!

      The electoral college helps ensure that we don't become overrun by populists. Despite this, Obama still has a chance (populism at its American worst).
    • floorman56, on 08/08/2008, -0/+71. People vote
      2. Count the votes
      3. We have winner!

      New York California and Florida has more votes than the 47 other states So they will be the only one picking the president. ... How is that "fair"?
      • garyi113, on 08/08/2008, -1/+0First of all - they have 113 of 270 votes.
        Second - They split 2-1 for Kerry in the last electon. So how did Bush win if they were the only ones picking the president?
      • floorman56, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1garyi113
        I'm talking VOTERS ... there are more PEOPLE in NY CA and FL than the other 47 states

        You are talking The electoral college.
    • roddack, on 08/08/2008, -0/+31) People vote for the demagogue
      2) count votes
      3) Profit?

      Yeah how about not.

    • Derrekito, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2"The American Party", you say? So does that mean Canada, Mexico, Central America, and South America will be represented in US politics? Seems rather hard to do...

      I agree that the Winner Take All system should be abolished. I also recognize that there is more to the Americas than the USA.
  • Myths, on 08/07/2008, -12/+10Voting Truth, Living Truth,
    Turn the electoral college OUT!
  • AtHomeBoy2000, on 08/07/2008, -6/+30Abolishing the Electoral College wont happen without a tectonic shift,
    but the National Popular Vote Bill is very plausible and gaining momentum: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
    • GreenHerald, on 08/07/2008, -3/+8This measure accomplishes the same effect as abolishing the Electoral College, and does not require a constitutional amendment. The winner of the popular vote becomes President. More than 70% of the population supports this reform. Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New Jersey have already passed this into law. All that would be required to make this reality is for states totalling 270 electoral votes to pass a similar law. How does it work? The electors in these states pledge to vote, in the electoral college, for the candidate who wins the popular vote. Keep it simple. No IRV needed in this case. No 14th Amendment issue, at all. Just: Win the popular vote, win the presidency.
      • medfreak, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Hmm that is interesting, even if s/he lost in that state.
    • JHB800, on 08/08/2008, -1/+5That is not remotely constitutional. It is, in effect, that states conspiring to alter the result of the elections through means not afforded to them by the constitution. Any legal challenge to this would see it fall in spectacular fashion.
      • rald84, on 08/08/2008, -2/+1but but ... the constitution affords STATES RIGHTS to award electoral votes in any manner they wish (democratically speaking).!!!

        i mean, think of the STATES' RIGHTS!!
      • GreenHerald, on 08/08/2008, -1/+0Is it "conspiring to ALTER THE RESULTS of the elections" or is it "covenanting to IMPLEMENT THE RESULTS of the election" (as determined by the national popular vote)?

        rald84 is correct. According to the Constitution, the several states (meaning the state legislatures) have absolute and ultimate authority to appoint their electors guided by whatever lights they deem fit. This principle has been affirmed repeatedly in Supreme Court decisions. Obviously, this principle in no way conflicts with the Fourteenth Amendment, or with any other provision of the Constitution. Until the Electoral College can be ABOLISHED, and direct election of the president established, by constitutional amendment, we the people do not even have a RIGHT TO VOTE FOR PRESIDENT; voting for president is a PRIVILEGE granted us by our state legislatures (see Gore v. Bush, 2000), a privilege which can be REVOKED, or presumbaly ALTERED at any time by the state legislatures.

        For the state legislatures to alter our "privilege", so that we can in effect have a national popular vote to elect our president shows that, unlikely as it may seem, our state legislators occasionally find a way to DO THE RIGHT THING.
    • Lamadave222, on 08/09/2008, -1/+0Wrong, a Congressional bill cannot supersede the Constitution, that requires a Constitutional Convention. To attempt to do so is, by definition, anti-Constitutional and therefore anti-American. Only city slickers think this is a good idea, because if this passes those are the only people who will ever see the candidates nominated for President.
  • chicofaraby, on 08/07/2008, -7/+15An idea whose time has come. A lawsuit won't change it, though. It will take a Constitutional Amendment.
    • floorman56, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1It will take a Constitutional Amendment.

      Which would require two-thirds of the states to say it was OK

      Two-thirds of the states are not going to cut there own throats
  • sanskover, on 08/07/2008, -9/+35I'll never understand why the Electoral College wasn't abolished by constitutional amendement after 2000. It's simple. If you live in a reliably Republican or reliably Democratic state and you're a member of the minority party, your vote for president doesn't count. How democratic is that?
    • Sicarius, on 08/08/2008, -2/+20Because the framers had enough sense to make changing the constitution difficult so that it didn't happen every time someone got their panties in a bunch.
      • ZenMojo, on 08/08/2008, -4/+1Actually, changing the Constitution is pretty easy. It's just that noone has the balls to try it.

        Coincidentally, that's pretty much how impeachment works....
    • Optiks, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2Then you would support a repeal of the 17th amendment?
  • muckemuck, on 08/07/2008, -2/+6 What the Green Party is proposing and fighting for is not the total elimination of the electoral college system, but rather the elimination of the "winner take all" system used to appropriate electors to each state. .. at least that's what I'm reading after glancing at this. Correct me if I'm wrong..
    • brashley46, on 08/07/2008, -0/+5This time, yeah, proportional representation in the EC. Eventually, abolition of the EC.
    • minox, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2Proportional electors worked great in the Dem primaries. Oh wait.
      • chaosblade77, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2There were issues with Hillary's numbers... she was not counting caucus states and counted all of the Michigan and Florida votes, which she originally agreed would not count. The numbers were close, but from what I remember reading Obama had a slight lead in terms of the actual number of votes.

        At the same time, you can't believe everything you read...
    • garyi113, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1Each state decides how to apportion EC delegates. 48 of them made it winner take all. Let each state decide how they want to choose the president.
  • StingingNettle, on 08/07/2008, -5/+37Instant run-off voting make so much sense. That's why Republicans and Democrats try and stop it.
    • Drogoganor, on 08/08/2008, -2/+4Definitely. I think third party voters should push for IRV before campaigning for a third party.
    • dylanh3, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2Actually, range voting (RV) is better than instant runoff voting (IRV). In RV each voter rates each candidate (on a scale of 1-10 or 1-100), or else gives an "X" if they wish to express no opinion on the candidate. The winner is the candidate with the highest average rating. Simple and fool-proof.

      With IRV it's still possible to inadvertently help your least favorite candidate by ranking your favorite first, which is completely counterintuitive and undesirable.
    • weltschmerz, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1Democrats and Republicans only try to stop IRV because they are ignorant of how much it would help them to both secure their two-party duopoly and mitigate the nuisance of (weak) spoiler candidates. If they would look at how IRV has maintained two-party duopoly after decades of use in places like Australia and Ireland, they'd be all for IRV.

      Score Voting (aka Range Voting) is a _real_ reform that actually helps to escape duopoly, and is vastly more representative and simple/practical to use. Here are some of the many many reasons to support Score Voting instead of IRV => http://rangevoting.org/CFERlet.html
  • kanvas, on 08/07/2008, -3/+35You had me at "names Cheney as defendant"
  • MarkEarhart, on 08/08/2008, -7/+12Tear them to pieces Cynthia!!! You have my support, and have had ever since you stood up to Rumsfeld. That was awesome!!! I don't agree with you on everything, but having a decent human being who seeks the truth rather than spewing lies every time they open their mouths would be a respirator for our dying republic, thus giving it a chance.

    I also greatly admire you for pursuing a new investigation of 9//11. W'e The People have been lied to for far too long!!!
  • 911ArtStudent, on 08/08/2008, -0/+24Anything that will break the two party (really one party with left and right wings) stranglehold is a step forward. Every other democracy has four or five parties seriously vying for power. We only get two which are practically indistinguishable in substance if not in style.
    • Sicarius, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3England has three - Labour, Conservative, and Lib Dem.
      Australia has two - Labour and Liberal.
      Even in New Zealand where we have fully proportional representation there are still only two major parties (Labour and National) each of which are at least five times bigger than the next biggest party. One of which always forms the government and sets almost all of the policy. A few large parties are a natural outcome of democracy because it is the easiest way to into power.
    • RafiParrr, on 08/08/2008, -1/+3Well, yes, there are many parties vying for power, but the problem then is that the party in power does not have a majority (>50%) of the vote, but simply a plurality (highest %). If people got pissed off over Bush's win in 2000 despite lacking the majority, then how pissed off do you think they'll be when the winner in a 7-way campaign comes out with a 21% plurality of the vote? Maybe something like what happened in France a little over a year ago?

      I believe that the question here is whether you want to make everyone upset, or just the intelligent subset of people who despise the two big parties upset, and frankly, those aren't the people who tend to own guns while simultaneously having a higher propensity to riot.
    • JHB800, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Yeah, and a majority of them have a parliamentary government, where multiple parties is a necessity.
  • Hangly, on 08/08/2008, -3/+8Disband the FEC. They're an unconstitutional body to begin with.
    • ZenMojo, on 08/08/2008, -2/+5President has powers to create executive agencies. That means the IRS, FBI, CIA, DEA, EPA, and all of those other three-letter acronyms are completely constitutional.
      • JHB800, on 08/08/2008, -2/+2Not remotely. Every single one of those agencies is a quasi executive/legislative body that doesn't fall within any of the branches. The president has no direct control over any of them, while Congress' only means of control is budgetary.
      • Hangly, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2Article 10 - enumerated powers.

        The President does not have power to create any of those agencies. They are created through either the "necessary and proper" or interstate commerce loopholes, and are completely contrary to the founders' intent.
  • thepoliticalcat, on 08/08/2008, -8/+3Do it.
  • gemlarin, on 08/08/2008, -6/+4Nice idea. Never happen. We the people lost our voice long ago due to lack of use.
    • Egoist, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1The Electoral College is as old as this country. You want to claim that the people have never had a voice?
  • aresef, on 08/08/2008, -8/+3Hell yes, let's do this.
  • Phatlip012, on 08/08/2008, -14/+8Isn't that cute. The green party actually thinks they'll accomplish something. :)

    Don't get me wrong- the electoral college blows. Nothing will come of this though. :(
  • eeemart, on 08/08/2008, -5/+2funny thing is, when i tell people i'm a registered member of the green party, the following question i get most is 'what's that?'
    • darkciti2, on 08/08/2008, -2/+3Great example of why the electoral college exists:

      Some people care more about how they are perceived by others than the actual issues at hand.

      Fortunately, we have the body electorate that can weigh an election with 5,000 emo kids with internet access vs 60 homeowners voting on a local county eminent domain provision.
    • Egoist, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3The second most common question you get is, "Why?!"
  • jayb1rd, on 08/08/2008, -4/+11I know the Electoral College seems broken, but it's the best option right now. The majority is not always right. If you had polled everyone pre-Civil-War and asked if slavery should be legal, it would stay legal. I just don't think going in and changing the Constitution is good.
    • jerrycurley, on 08/08/2008, -3/+3Trying to comapre electing a president in the 1860s with doing it now is absurd.
      • megaton, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3I agree!

        So is comparing gun control in the 1860s to now! (Guns kill!)
        So is comparing protection against warrantless searches and seizures in the 1860s to now! (Terrorists live among us!)
        So is comparing the right to a trial by jury in the 1860s to now! (Terrorists kill!)
        So is comparing forbidding cruel and unusual punishment in the 1860s to now! (Terrorists lie!)

        Let's trample on the Constitution! Yeah!
      • dougmc, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2why? The rules are the same. The population is larger, but the rules scale well. Technology has improved (in some ways) the process as well, but ultimately I don't see it as being fundamentally different than it was 140 years ago.
      • jerrycurley, on 08/08/2008, -4/+0Are both of you really that stupid? megaton..who is suggesting trampling on the Constitution? You Do realize that the founding fathers knew that they could not possible right the be all/end all book of laws for the future, right? And dougmc..are YOU that stupid too? In the 1860s, people didn't know what was going on outside their own little towns. BIG difference today.

        If there was the internet, and TV in 1960...with everything else being EXACTLY the same, then the majroity would have been against slavery.
      • dougmc, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Sure, radio and TV and the Internet has changed how fast information travels, but don't pretend that nobody knew what was going on 140 years ago.

        140 years ago, information traveled at the speed of the telegraph, of the train, of the horse. (I'm guessing you forgot about the telegraph?) Sure, it didn't go into your house, but news traveled via it, to the printing press. Something that happened yesterday across the country could easily be in the local newspaper today or tomorrow.

        But even before the telegraph, one of the most important things that traveled by horse, boat, train, whatever was information. Even 140 years ago, people were hungry for news about what was happening outside their local town.

        As for your claim about internet and TV in 1960 (1860?) ... well, you can guess all you want. But to pretend that news didn't travel in 1860 is to just be stupid. And as far as people being against slavery, it's possible that the majority WAS against slavery in 1860, even without the magic of TV or the Internet. Lincoln's emancipation proclamation happened in 1863, and slavery was already pretty unpopular. (Especially if you counted the slaves, not that anybody did.)

        Not that slavery was abolished after a democratic vote. It was abolished after a bloody civil war, where a largely anti-slavery set of people crushed a largely pro-slavery set of people.
    • DuffyDirect, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2Yes but as the country rapidly industrialized and urbanized, and took in millions of northern immigrants who voted for whoever the mayor told them to, slavery would have been abolished eventually... the agrarian system was falling apart before the war and "reconstruction" ruined it. all those poor people who died fighting their own countrymen really shouldn't have had to.
      • jerrycurley, on 08/08/2008, -0/+0Some times it is worth fighting to have something done sooner rather than later.

        So, slavery would have been abolished "eventually" with everything that happened. What would be acceptable to you? If it had been abolished by 1900? 30+ more years of it? How about 1880? Would that be a short enough time that it was not worth it? And would you feel differently if YOU were a black man in 1870?
      • DuffyDirect, on 08/08/2008, -1/+130 more years would be worth, in my opinion, preventing the ku-klux-klan, jim crowe, reconstruction, lincoln's assassination and the radical republicans who tarnished lincoln's vision of a united and proud nation. The south wasn't reintegrated into the union, it was humiliated and degregaded into the union. Blacks remained slaves. They were made sharecroppers, shot and hung if they voted, and hated in the north as much as in the south because of the bloody cost it took to "free" them.

        Slavery would have been eliminated well before 1900, too. If the southern cities had been allowed to develop during 10+ years of war and reconstruction -- 10 years where foreign immigration was BARRED from cities like Charleston and only contributed to the insular nature of the place -- imagine what kind of industrial powerhouse would have emerged? The gentleman farmers would have dumped the cotton economy and built railroads and factories instead. the slaves would have been factory workers just like the immigrants up north -- they would have been united with the whites as workers, would have been their brothers in unions and strikes, and they would have had pride in themselves as people who did not "owe" anyone for "freeing" them. They would have had the same kind of pride in being a part of a non-violent revolution as the Indians and the MLK Jr.'s followers during the civil right's movement.

        This is all IMO btw, I'm not a historian or anything. I just don't believe in fighting. I think it's the last recourse of people who are too idealistic, too stupid, too impotent, or too desperate to get what they want. The most stunning victories are the ones where the victor doesn't have to lift a finger (i.e. Saudi Arabia in Gulf War I)
  • minox, on 08/08/2008, -4/+13Now I've seen everything. By the way, how is that investigation of Tupac's death going, Cynthia?
  • nblsavage, on 08/08/2008, -10/+13"Hey - we're not winning, let's change the rules"
  • onetimer, on 08/08/2008, -9/+14Isn't this the same cynthia that got laughed out of congress after she started espousing the 911-troofer theories? Or when she honestly tried to get the government to PAY for an investigation into Tupac's death?

    Or the same one that DECKED a security guard simply asking for her ID when she was entering the capitol building?

    I can't believe the green party stooped as low as nominating her...
    • minox, on 08/08/2008, -1/+8You have to wonder what kind of history the candidates they rejected must have had.
    • bxblox, on 08/08/2008, -4/+1I agree with most everything there. But doesn't the government usually pay for homicide investigations?
  • raybury, on 08/08/2008, -5/+10One appeal of the Electoral College is that in electing a President of the United States, we don't elect a president of eligible voters (and successful frauds) who happen to get to the polls. A million people in a state that is half populated with children have the same voice as a million people in a state half populated by not-yet-naturalized immigrants, who have the same voice as a million people in a state with few children and mostly citizens. If Pittsburgh is snowed out on election day, Philadelphia takes up the slack, rather than Pennsylvania's millions being underrepresented, and the rural dwellers in North Dakota can decide whether to make the long trip to the polling station or let their Fargo neighbors choose, in either case not seeing their state's population discounted.

    Also, the greens are crazy commies.
  • worldgate, on 08/08/2008, -8/+2So this is how the republicans think they can win the election by trying to get rid of the electoral college? LOL
    • DaDrake, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2Nationally republicans and democratic voting numbers are incredibly close.... this would only benefit certain states (with high populations) in receiving more campaign attention. In other words, great for CA.... bad for Vermont.
  • pablo0713, on 08/08/2008, -7/+17The Green party lost all legitimacy when they nominated Mckinny as their presidential candidate.
  • Tangaroa, on 08/08/2008, -11/+4Cynthia McKinney is an idiot. Barack Obama is a damned good candidate and deserves your support. Also, approval voting could be implemented much more easily than IRV.
    • alaskanassassin, on 08/08/2008, -2/+1both are terrible candidates, but Instant Runoff Elections get my support.
  • Sheylon, on 08/08/2008, -11/+2Although I certainly support the abolition of the idiotic and insulting Electoral College system, I will never forgive the moronic Green Party and Ralph Nader for giving us eight years of Bush. Grow up, people - most of life is about choosing the lesser of two evils. President Gore would have made Greens a hell of a lot happier if they hadn't been so arrogant as to withold their votes for him to make a point.
    • variablek, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2Grow up? If you believe that ***** propaganda about the Green Party costing the Democrats the election, you're the one who has some growing up to do. Nader didn't cause Bush to take Florida away from Gore and I'm sick of zombie minded Democrats repeating this nonsense over and over, you're blindly following what your told strangely reminicient of Republicans. Stop it, Democrats are supposed to be smarter than that.
    • DuffyDirect, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1very true.
    • Akairenn, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3Time for you to grow up. The lesser of two evils is what brought us Bush. But keep on fellatiating the Democrats and Republicans - that will certainly turn this country around!
  • jintao, on 08/08/2008, -3/+3This is a step in the right direction, albeit stopping short of the best voting system I know of. Range voting is the most sincere form of voting. An easier to implement version of it is approval voting. Right now, we have a voting game where voters fear one candidate and so vote for the most popular other candidate. Sure, it's a well-established game and we know it well. It is predictable. It isn't democracy, and when I go to the polls, I know I don't have any power. In the primary and in the final election, it is the same - two frontrunners that are chosen by mob rule. Technically, mob rule is democracy, but it isn't what our country is aiming for.

    Instant runoff is not the best and can have schemes. There is a scheme where a strong candidate supports a weak candidate to take away votes from his opponents, and this increases the chances of electing a radical politician.

    Diggers be warned.
    • XZanatos, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Any voting system can have its problems, there is no perfect system. The electoral college system stole the presidency from Gore in 2000. I would call THAT a flaw.
  • UNCsucks, on 08/08/2008, -8/+10McKinney is ***** ***** insane.
  • mm911, on 08/08/2008, -3/+8If New York and California were red states, would the Green Party be doing this? Nope.
    • muckemuck, on 08/08/2008, -2/+1Much of the South is made up of "red states" and that's why the Green Party is doing this. States where the minority vote makes up 20 - 30% and is totally lost because the "all or nothing" system doesn't award that state electors for those voters. Those voters are totally disenfranchised with the system since they see their vote not counted election after election.
  • toofoocactus, on 08/08/2008, -6/+4About time. Thanks Greens.

    The rest of the world doesn't understand what an "electoral college" has to do with democracy or how it works. 90% of America doesn't understand how it works and 100% of America can't explain why it belongs in a "democracy". Rush Limbaugh and people like him spent 8 years complaining and beefing about Clinton winning in 1992 with less than 50% of the vote ('cause Ross Perot took 15%) and saying that unless you won more than 50% of the vote, you didn't really win. But now that somebody actually wants to DO SOMETHING so that the candidate who wins the most votes actually wins the election... we see where the idiots like Rush really stand. For anti-democratic weirdness like the Electoral College.
    • JHB800, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Other countries, mainly in Asia, use electoral colleges to great success.
      • toofoocactus, on 11/12/2008, -0/+1My understanding of democracy is that it's a "success" when it guarantees that each person has a vote equal to each other person.

        Some think that democracy is a bad system and that "philosopher kings" should rule rather than the dirty, unwashed masses, and that any system that gives outsize influence to an elite minority is better than democracy.
  • DaDrake, on 08/08/2008, -5/+6Abolish the electorate college? *****, you have a better chance abolishing the 2nd amendment with 2/3 of the country being gun owners. What we need to do is give more power to the states (by voting in libertarians). While you may not like it in 2000 (wasn't the first time a President didn't win a popular vote... won't be the last), the system does have benefits. How else are you suppose to get candidates focused on small states and rural areas? Either way its impossible ..... removing the electorate college would make campaigns focus on 9-11 key states..... no way you are going to have 39+ states agree on an amendment that would lower their significance in the Presidential race.
    • muckemuck, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2You need to read the article rather than the comments here. They aren't trying to totally eliminate the electoral college. They're trying to change it so states aren't awarded electors by an "winner take all" system which cheats the minority vote (and third parties) out of a voice.
      • Derrekito, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2"Winner take all" system is a complete sham. It simply has never sat well with me - especially since I'm from far West Texas. My vote is a waste since I'm not republican, and my district's electoral vote get shafted to the GOP. While getting rid of it would not perfect our current electoral system, it would be a HUGE step in the right direction. At least my vote would count for something.
  • CyphreDias, on 08/08/2008, -5/+4I like Cynthia, but I can not support her if she is going to go along with the Anthropogenic Global Warming politics. I strongly considered voting for her, but I can not support anyone who supports the IPCC's lie. The United Nations is famously corrupt, and it follows that any organization that is formed by the United Nations is fruit of a poison tree. Cynthia is either misguided, or compromising to be part of one of the larger parties. I will be supporting The Constitution Party or writing in my vote for Ron Paul.
    • wooFmeoWoinK, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3...so because the UN is so corrupt you will be voting for a Republican? That doesn't make much sense.
    • brok3nh3lix, on 08/08/2008, -0/+0ahhh so your one of those bat ***** crazies that think its impossible for humans to effect the climate despite what science has shown us. i bet you also support Intelligent design.
    • muckemuck, on 08/08/2008, -0/+2I know it's tough.. but focus on the issue pertaining to THIS ARTICLE. Whether you're going to vote for her and how well you can bash her is a different issue from whether our electoral college is broken and unfairly negates the minority and third party vote.
    • geanark, on 08/09/2008, -0/+0nobody actually believes that earthlings might cause global warming, it is all just a big conspiracy to get you to believe the big lie!
      i just got my check in the mail this afternoon, and as soon as Cynthia and the GPUS get thier checks it's going to be all over for Obama, who could never raise the money from corporations that Exon-Mobil pays us to promulgate the myth that it is possible that certain gass releases amplified by humaan activity could even possibly be able to affect climate by absorbing warmth that would otherwise radiate back into space!
      (if you want proof just look to the Venusians, they tried so hard to believe in the greenhouse gas effect that they have all gone extinct from the strain it put on thier little 50 pound brains)
  • icndvl, on 08/08/2008, -6/+11. Vote Mcstupid
    2. Watch economy colapse
    3. Masses start to care
    4. Change
    • muckemuck, on 08/08/2008, -0/+21. Vote Mcstupid
      2. Watch economy collapse
      3. Masses start to panic and do whatever the hell the TV tells them to
      4. Change to a totally fascist form of government (we're already well on our way)

      History books are full of collapses and governments changing or being taken over by totalitarian forms of government. "Change" for the better is more rare.
  • PhilLesh69, on 08/08/2008, -4/+3I'd be more supportive of just getting rid of a two-party system. You know, a system that if it were operating in the business world, would be violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

    Getting rid of the electoral college is like having the flu and only wanting to get rid of your stuffy nose, meanwhile you're okay with the fever, diarrhea, stomach ache, fatigue and sore muscles.

    The electoral college would be fine if any, all, and every party had the same opportunities as the two established parties have. If the media wouldn't marginalize or even completely ignore any but the two establishment parties. If there were not so many barriers to getting on the ballot in all 50 states.

    Why do we have a system of government controlled by only two powerful parties? Aren't they more susceptible to being controlled by those with enough money and ownership of enough of the media? Wouldn't it serve the people if they were not just given two choices, both of which will still benefit those people with money no matter which of the two parties prevails?
    • weltschmerz, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1You will always have a two-party system until you switch to a voting method like Score Voting or Approval Voting. Then you can eventually implement proportional representation.

      It's so disturbing to hear people constantly complain about two-party duopoly, but then focus on things other than implementing Score Voting. Score Voting is priority #1 for democracy's reformers.
  • Enchorito, on 08/08/2008, -4/+8This is stupid for 2 reasons.

    1) The idea that we're going to get a Constitutional amendment to do this is a looooooong shot. As much as some people don't like it, it actually serves useful purposes like preventing mob rule. It also helps to ensure that there is a clear winner, whereas with a popular vote a close race could choose a winner based upon a statistical anomaly instead of the will of the people. It also helps to ensure that certain demographics do not skew the voting process and that everyone gets a "fair" representation in the process; for example, more and more people live in cities vs. rural areas, but states that are primarily rural get an equal voice compared with more populous states with big cities. In short, popular vote is not as fair as people would like to think.

    2) Punishing states by taking away votes because of past voting fraud robs honest citizens of their voice. That's like being in grade school where the jackass teacher punishes everyone until someone confesses to leaving the frog in her desk. Punish those responsible but don't defraud voters.

    • PhilLesh69, on 08/08/2008, -2/+1None of what you say makes any sense.

      What do you mean by a "statistical anomaly"? That sounds like a very guarded, shaded racist remark.

      "The will of the people" is anything more than 51% of the vote. I know that in the age of computer polls, 50.01% can be a majority, but the traditional measure, and even with public corporations, the measure is 51%, if you have 51% of the voting stock, you rule. There should be no statistical anomaly, other than when the measure has been redefined.

      as for point 2, who is talking about " Punishing states by taking away votes because of past voting fraud"??

      I'm not sure how running an election based solely on the popular vote takes away votes because of past fraud. Can you explain that to me?
    • Demener, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Here's a "statistical anomaly" for you.
      Candidate A takes the 3 largest states with 51%. Lets say 49% vote for candidate B. 100% of the electoral votes in these states go to candidate A.

      Now lets say Candidate B sweeps through the small states securing 80% of the votes.

      Now we tally up the votes, Candidate A can easily pull 60% of the electoral votes by securing those large states but candidate B could also come out with 60% of the popular vote.

      Even if we can't get rid of the electoral college, we need to get rid of the winner take all aspect of it.
  • sarlok, on 08/08/2008, -4/+7The thing is, there is actually no really good reason to abolish the electoral college. Also, abolishing it would take huge amounts of work in getting the votes needed. Instead, people should fight this battle at the state level where it may be easier to change. The wonderful thing about the electoral college system is that each state gets to decide how it chooses electors. So, if you don't like the winner-takes-all system in your state, then get some people to change it! This really doesn't require any amendments to the US Constitution - the changes can be made at state level and have the same effect.
  • wooFmeoWoinK, on 08/08/2008, -3/+2So lets see... McCain wants never ending war... Obama talks like a liberal and votes like a Bush... and the Green Party is trying to do away with the electoral college. Seems like an easy decision!
    • PhilLesh69, on 08/08/2008, -0/+3Yeah, the conclusion is that they are all just seeking absolute power.

      And we all should know what that means. Okay, maybe not all of us. For those of you who attended a public school and a state college, I'll explain it to you...

      "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
    • ZenMojo, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2McCain voted like Bush 95% of the time.
  • Jam37, on 08/08/2008, -1/+8I'm a Libertarian that wants third parties included in the system, however we should not destroy our current system to do it. We need to use reasoned debates to influence people to vote for our parties.
    • PhilLesh69, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2I'll paste a portion of a comment I posted up above:


      "The electoral college would be fine if any, all, and every party had the same opportunities as the two established parties have. If the media wouldn't marginalize or even completely ignore any but the two establishment parties. If there were not so many barriers to getting on the ballot in all 50 states.

      Why do we have a system of government controlled by only two powerful parties? Aren't they more susceptible to being controlled by those with enough money and ownership of enough of the media? Wouldn't it serve the people if they were not just given two choices, both of which will still benefit those people with money no matter which of the two parties prevails?"



      A truly representative government would not fear the ability of every citizen to have a say. But we live in a government built upon two very powerful ideologies, and both ideologies are controlled by the same wealthy and powerful groups.
  • YodaJones, on 08/08/2008, -2/+3Yes. You go dudes. Hang them all, take no prisoners. Let's start all over.
  • HappyScrappy, on 08/08/2008, -1/+6The Constitution pretty clearly indicates the states get to pick how they apportion their Electoral College votes. And whether you think it's stupid or not, it is the law of the land. So I don't get how suing the government for following the Constitution makes any sense.
    • datastorageguy, on 08/08/2008, -1/+4People who support the green party, and other parties like it, have no idea that this is a republic, not a democracy.
  • susanleefrnds, on 08/08/2008, -6/+1Green Party Rocks!
  • Egoist, on 08/08/2008, -2/+11The Electoral College vs Popular Vote (A simplified example):

    Let's take Digg and MakiMaki as an example. MakiMaki is able to get multiple stories promoted to the front page daily thanks to a popular vote system (yes, I know it's not a pure popular vote, but for the sake of argument).

    Imagine if Digg was broken up into small groups of like-minded users: the stoners, the libs, the conservatives, the treehuggers, the over diggers, the under diggers, the wannabe friends of Kevin Rose, etc.

    Now in order for MakiMaki to get a story to the front page, he could no longer rely on just his "friends" to digg it up. He would have to take to each of the groups and convince them to vote to have his story promoted to the front page. If he gained a majority of vote from all of those groups, his story would get pushed to the front page. If not, it would be relegated to the same place as everyone elses'.

    So what do you think is more fair? The popular vote system where MakiMaki's friends push his stories up to the front page on a daily basis or an electoral college to dilute the power of his friends and to give power to those who focus on other aspects of their lives than digging up friends' stories?

    All I ask is that you sit down and read James Madison's Federalist Papers before hopping on this bandwagon:
    http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_10.html
    • muckemuck, on 08/08/2008, -4/+2The problem is.. . the "small groups of like-minded users" in our country are not small and they're made up of only two groups who are very determined to see that the third parties do not gain a foothold.

      If a state manages to get 20% voting for a third party candidate it's still totally ineffective. Their votes are lost because that state will award ZERO electors for that third party. That party is not represented, and the people who voted for that party see their votes as totally wasted.
      • garyi113, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Then amend your state constitution.
    • Demener, on 08/08/2008, -1/+2It's not just that the electoral votes don't go towards the guy they voted for, they go towards the guy that won the state.

      If candidate A wins the state and you vote for candidate B, YOUR "VOTE" GOES TO candidate A.
      • garyi113, on 08/08/2008, -1/+0And if Senator A wins an election but you voted for Senator B. Then your "VOTE" on every Senate bill goes to whatever Senator A voted for.

        Should we also throw out the Senate?

        It's a representative democracy - get used to it.

  • JHB800, on 08/08/2008, -2/+3This is an interesting side show to the McCain-Obama back and forth, but that's all it will be. This lawsuit displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the electoral college works, and the right of the states to decide whether their electoral votes are apportioned or winner-takes-all. Forget the fact that they want to get rid of the electoral college; that issue is dead and always will be. The main issue here is that McKinney is attempting to force an unprecedented invasion of state sovereignty that has never before been seen. This is essentially her and the Green Party attempting to have the Federal Government decide for every state in the nation how their electoral votes will be decided, and who they will go to. Such a thing has never, in the history of this nation, been done.

    God willing it will never happen in my lifetime either.

  • Spoomeister, on 08/08/2008, -3/+1So since the Green party can't get to any significant national or state office by actually building a legitimate party from the grassroots that has enough popular support to win elections... they're going to try to legislate their way to getting what they want.

    Hurm.
    • Demener, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1Your using South Park Logic.
      1: Change Laws.
      2: ???
      3: World domination.

      Your ignoring step 2: Get voted into office.
      • Spoomeister, on 08/08/2008, -1/+1Not ever expecting, or fearing, step 3 there - green party world domination isn't a big concern. It's just amusing that their party platform isn't getting it done, so they're going to do an end-run around to try to legislate their way to legitimacy...just like the tactics of the 2-party system they're fighting.

        And it's "you're", not "your".
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 82 of 82 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.