It's the electoral college.

[rogerashton]

Not Nader.

I'm getting steamed at the wide acceptance of the notion that Nader cost Gore the 2000 election. (I voted for Gore, by the way, because I thought, and still think, Nader was wrong on the fiscal issues. On fiscal policy, there is not that much difference between Nader and Bush).

Don't forget: Gore got more votes than Bush did. Even with the crooked count in Florida (and in other southern states where Black Folks are still the victims of electoral discrimination) Gore got more votes. What made it possible for Bush to steal the election was the electoral college. In a popular vote election, Gore wins. End of story.

But this belief that Nader cost Gore the election is convenient for supporters of the democratic party who want to avoid the issue of bringing real democracy to this country instead of the semi-sham we have. Yes, it will be very difficult to change the electoral system. It means a constitutional amendment. But to ignore the NECESSITY of this change is putting the head in the sand. We cannot stand still. The right will take away from us even the compromised democracy we have if we do not take away from the right its ability to steal elections.

The first step in that direction:

Popular vote election of the president with preference voting and instant runoffs.

If you think we can keep our "two-party system" with any less electoral reform than that, please think more carefully, democrats.

[Frodo]

1. Sounds like your problem is with the Constitution.

[LastDemocratInSC]

10. There's nothing wrong with having issues with the Constitution

The Constitution is a document of awkward compromises. Many of the original states refused to ratify it until it was decided that the Bill of Rights would be made as amendments. My state, South Carolina, wanted 12 amendments to secure the basic rights of citizens. Other states fought against any such amendments. The Constitution was so controversial that a plan to fix it had to be agreed to just to get it passed by the states. What a mess.

Our right to express our views here on DU exists because our ancestors had problems with the Constitution. Good for them.

[Frodo]

13. Nothing "wrong" with it.

Except:

1) That you couldn't possibly get it changed since the very states who would be losing clout are the ones you need to ratify your ammendment.

2) It smacks of childishness and makes us look like "if you can't win within the rules - change the rules".


We either lost because they cheated or lost because we lost. We didn't lose because the rules were "wrong". The time to argue that would have been before the election. Of course THEN it looked like Bush was going to win the popular vote but Gore might eke out a EC victory. Nobody here had a problem with the idea THEN... it just looks like sour grapes NOW.

Of course Nader "cost" the election in pure numbers. But by that standard Perot "cost" two previous elections. People have a right to vote for the guy/gal they agree with.

[rogerashton]

15. If we stand for democracy

(by which I mean popular sovereignty) and there are aspects of our system that are against that ideal, then either we do our best to change them or we are hypocrits. The fact that we happen to have lost in 2000 is, of course, reason for big-D Democrats in particular to be concerned. However --

The 1960 election went the other way. Kennedy did have a popular plurality, but just barely, and he had a much bigger electoral vote margin -- because he won big states by slim margins.

It could have gone that way in 2000, too. Shift a FEW THOUSAND votes in the right places, and you have a Gore electoral victory and Bush with the popular plurality. And that could happen in any close election. It is a random monkey wrench that favors only cheaters. (And by the way, its influence is just the opposite of what the founding fathers intended. They hoped that it would prevent party dominance -- instead it increases party dominance.)

The idea that the electoral college favors the small states is an illusion. Because of winner-take-all it can just as easily favor the big, blue states in a given election.

It is really a matter of small-d democracy. Either you are for that or you are not. Which?

[Frodo]

16. If we "stand for democracy" but DEFINE "democracy"

in conflict with the foundation of our Democracy... then we don't really stand for anything.

That document IS "what we stand for". If you don't like it, you need to convince others it is wrong (an impossible task here). Not set up a straw man by using your own definition.

In short, we DON'T "stand for popular sovreignity".

[rogerashton]

21. democrats do.

The logic of your argument is that the document may never be amended. But it has been amended many times. The document we have is the product of those amendments. To say there is something wrong with proposing further amendments is inconsistent.

And, yes, it willo be necessary to persuade people. What did you suppose I was trying to do? And you are trying to persuade them that we should NOT make our system more democratic (as I, with what I believe is a human approximation to logical consistency, define it). Therefore you are (as I understand it) antidemocratic and against the ideals that America stands for.

"Go thou and sin no more."

[DemPopulist]

22. I agree with your last sentence

But not your next-to-last one. Perot didn't cost Bush the election, must less Dole.

[Frodo]

26. Sure he did. By the same standard that Nader did.

Sure there were lots of people who voted for Perot who would ahve otherwise voted for Clinton (or Dole). But there were also plenty who wouldn't have voted at all. And there is no sure way to know how many of each there were.

But the standard here is too often "just add the Gore votes to the Nader votes and you get the 'true' vote for our side - in which case we win handily". That just isn't the case. There are lots of people who are attracted to third party candidates who might be left or right of center but who would not have voted for either Bush or Gore. Only the narrowness of the election makes people assume that it is "obvious".

Again - either the other side cheated or we lost fair and square. We can blame Gore for a poorly run race (TN & WV were unforgivable) if we want to, but Nader/Perot/(insert third party here) cannot be fairly tagged with "costing" the election. If some Democrats prefer Nader over Kerry then blame Kerry, not Nader.

Surely if the AL judge get's in as a "Constitution Party" (or whatever) candidate - we won't cry over Bush losing 1-2% to him?

[leftofthedial]

2. if one thousand of Florida's Nader voters had voted for Gore

Gore would be in the White House now. Period.

No 9-11.

No perpetual "war" on "terror."

No illegal invasion of Iraq.

No multi-trillion-dollar deficits.

3 million people still emplyed.

If you feel the irrational need to alibi for Nader's complicity with the neocon agenda, blame the two-party system. In the United States of America, you have two choices for President. The Democrat or the Republican. If you vote for anyone other than the Democrat, you are either a neocon or a neocon stooge. Period.

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. Really?

"If you vote for anyone other than the Democrat, you are either a neocon or a neocon stooge. Period."

Tell that to the tens of thousands of Dems who voted for $hrub in Florida last time around.



I'm supporting Kerry this time around, but he better give us some major election reform while in office.

[leftofthedial]

29. I'll tell it to everyone who failed to vote for Gore

we have YOU to thank for the bushgang.

The bushgang are criminals and anyone who helped them seize power is an accomplice in my book.

[leyton]

34. What nuance!

"If you vote for anyone other than the Democrat, you are either a neocon or a neocon stooge. Period."

Way to deprive the word neo-conservative of its meaning by applying it to a good portion of the population! We Democrats have no need of nuance or detail - we can just look at the big picture. Everyone is either with us or against us! Thumbs up!

[still_one]

3. Currently our system is through the electoral college

Nader ran in borderline state and did tip the 2000 election. When he made inane statements that there was no difference between Gore and Bush says everything.

He has every right to run, and we have every right to lose because of it.

When you have Nader's largest contributorrs being from the republican party I think that sums it up nicely

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. Those reform ideas are a good start, but I could go for

even more as outlined on my website.

[library_max]

6. This is wrong.

In the first place, if the popular vote had been the determinant, there would have been a national recount instead of a Florida recount - the mess in Florida would have been nation-wide. The only reason nobody disputes Al Gore winning the national popular vote is because it doesn't matter. If it mattered, there would have been recounts absolutely everywhere. We might still not know who was president.

Second, a nationwide popular vote is an invitation to vote fraud on a grand scale. Right now, heavily unipartisan states have no motive to drive up the vote - all their party's candidate can get is their state's electoral vote, no matter how lopsided the state popular vote. But if cranking out a few million extra votes could help Bush, Texas, for example, would be likely to do it. In swing states, there are plenty of both Republicans and Democrats in power to keep an eye on each other. What keeps vote fraud down in uniparty states is lack of motive.

Third, a nationwide popular vote removes candidates' incentives to campaign outside the most populated areas - east and west coasts, upper Midwest (Chicago to Minneapolis), urban Texas. Particularly we'd never see a Democratic candidate more than 100 miles from an ocean again. The electoral college gives candidates a reason to campaign even in poorly-populated rural states like New Mexico and West Virginia, when they are "in play." If the vote was a popular vote, candidates would go where the votes are and pretty much forget the rest of the country.

Fourth, a purely regional candidate (like Wallace in '68) could win if he could get the turnout high enough in his region with enough apathy in the rest of the country. Imagine Bush getting 40% in the rest of the country and still winning on his enormous Texas vote.

[HawkerHurricane]

8. How about a modified electoral college?

As it stand right now, a low population state (say, South Dakota) gets electoral votes for its one representitive and two senators... while a high population state (California) gets its votes for 50+ reps and two senators... the low pop state gets more electorals per person than the high pop one...
Eliminate the electoral votes for senators, and it makes it closer to a 'by population' account.

[rogerashton]

17. You still have the "winner take all" problem.

But what you suggest would probably help some. Why settle for halfway measures?

[BGrier]

14. Yeah, but...

I live in Nebraska and I never see Democratic candidates campaigning for President. It's tough to go the polls here knowing a farm animal would win if it were on the Republican ticket.

[rogerashton]

18. An honest recount is better than a dishonest president.

By the way, I agree that a popular vote would give people in uncontested states a reason to turn out and vote -- and a reason to turn out to vote is also a reason to cheat. But cheating is part of the human condition, and giving people in uncontested states a reason to turn out is a GOOD thing.

Under my proposal, no one would win with 40% of the vote. "Instant runoff." If no-one has a majority on the first vote, then the candidate with the lowest total is dropped and those who voted for that person get their second choices counted. So on until somebody gets a MAJORITY!!

So the strange results you refer to -- regional candidates, for example -- are actually more probably with our present system.

Of course, if you are going negative, it helps if you actually know what you are arguing against.

[library_max]

24. How does a nationwide popular vote ensure an honest recount?

Florida state law was clear on the matter of recounts, for all the damn good that did us. If SCOTUS wouldn't allow an honest recount in Florida, what makes you think they'd have allowed one nationwide?

Regarding turnout, the incentive to vote fraud would be increased much more than the incentive to vote. People with an intense interest in politics can only vote once, but they can theoretically vote fraud an infinite number of times. Putting more states in play might motivate non-voters a little (or it might not), but the increased opportunities for meaningful vote fraud would motivate election cheats a lot.

Regarding 40% of the vote, RIF. I said that Bush could win with 40% of the vote in the rest of the country and an enormous popular vote (some of it probably fraudulent) in Texas. That could push him over 50% in the popular vote nationwide, see. Instant runoff wouldn't do bubkes about it.

By the way, before you assume that instant runoff is the savior, remember how many Nader voters listed Bush as their second choice. This probably wasn't because they liked Bush but because they were angry at Gore and figured saying Bush was their second choice would be a satisfying no-cost tantrum. Do you think voters would be more mature if we had instant runoff? I don't.

There are no grounds in fact or logic for saying that the strange results I refer to are more probable with our present system.

[rogerashton]

27. The basis in fact and logic

for saying that they are likely to happen under the present system is that they have happened under the present system.

I concede that a national recount would not NECESSARILY be honest. But you seem to believe that it would be NECESSARILY dishonest or otherwise undesireable. Why? This is a position for which you have "no basis in fact and logic."

[library_max]

31. Under the present system

we have not had a purely regional candidate elected president. And that's the specific example you chose. Of course we have had some election fraud, but I think I made a pretty strong case that there would be much more without the Electoral College, and that case has not been addressed, much less refuted. States that are not the most populous do get addressed in presidential elections if they are "swing states," so there again the present system does not have the problems I alluded to.

As for the undesirability of a nationwide recount (which we probably would have had in every single presidential election at least back to '88), it's common sense. If a cup of grape juice spilled on the carpet makes a mess (Florida 2000), a fortiori a gallon of grape juice spilled on the carpet is going to make a much bigger mess.

[JCMach1]

7. I am sorry, but look at the National Elections Study data

From the University of Michigan and you will see that Nader was a major factor.


http://www.umich.edu/~nes/index.htm

[Poiuyt]

9. Electoral College shows that we do not have a democracy

We have a republic, not a democracy. We do not have a one man, one vote system. It's just a matter of who's vote counts more than others. (I believe we will be trying to install a democracy in Iraq. We should be so lucky here).

I agree with your concept of instant runoff elections and proportional representation, but those would require a constitutional amendment. Of course, this administration would rather push for an amendment discriminating against gay marriages, but that's another topic.

[thedude]

12. we are a democratic republic

I get very tired of this, "we are a republic, not a democracy line." Go to dictionary.com and look up republic. To be a republic simply means that you are not a monarchy. There are many types of republics. The old USSR was rightly called a republic because their head of state was not a monarch. It was not, however, a democracy.

We are both a democracy and a republic. Our head of state is not a monarch (hence, we are a republic), and the head of state and other government representatives are chosen by the people (hence, we are also a democracy.

This "republic not a democracy" talking point needs to be nipped in the bud. We are a democratic republic.

[rogerashton]

19. We are a Republic

with LIMITED popular sovereignty.

[sangh0]

11. Overly simplistic

"It's not that, it's this" is too simple for me. I believe that there were several factors working in combination.

[rogerashton]

20. No doubt.

But some are more important than others. Had Nader not been in the race, Bush might still have been able to steal the election -- only it would have taken even larger-scale chicanery. Had the election been decided by popular vote, with or without Nader, Gore wins. And there is every reason to think that would have been the best result for popular sovereignty.

[sangh0]

23. The "With all other things being equal" ploy

The only problem is that "all other things" are never equal. Changing one, changes them all.

[library_max]

25. By the way,

"Had the election been decided by popular vote, with or without Nader, Gore wins."

Really? Gore got 48% of the nationwide popular vote. So did Bush. 4% went to "other." Explain, please, how that translates into
"Gore wins." To me, it looks like the election goes into the House of Representatives, which I believe was Republican at the time (and still is).

And also by the way, the last time a presidential candidate actually received a majority of the popular vote was in 1988.

[rogerashton]

28. The votes were not identical.

Gore had the popular plurality. A vote conducted the way I propose COULD NOT go to the house of reps. Nader would have been dropped and Nader voters' second choices would then have been counted, and one candidate would have had a majority.

Could it have been Bush, because Naderites were so angry at Gore? Sure, it's possible. In the preference vote I conducted among my students, Nader outpolled Bush and improved on the second round as the one Bushie listed Nader as his second choice. The Naderites in my class split on their second choice. But THERE WAS NOTHING RIDING ON THAT CHOICE. If Nader voters knew that their second preference could and probably would be counted, they would take another look at Gore. On the other side, Naderites had plenty of reason to be pissed at big-D democrats, since the D's were trashing E's left and right. One advantage of preference voting is that it would create incentives for each to address the other's voters in a positive way, since, even if you don't get their first-preference vote, you might win on their second preference. (D's are smart enough to do this if they have anything to gain by it, I think). As somebody said, "other things equal" can be deceptive.

[library_max]

32. "There was nothing riding on that choice."

But as it turned out, the entire @%#$ election was riding on the Nader voters' first choice, at least in Florida. So why would you assume that people would be mature and responsible in identifying their second choice just because something might be "riding on it"?

Think about the mess for a second. Think about how many voters wouldn't bother to include a second choice or would write in Donald Duck or something. If there had to be a nationwide recount of the initial votes (with a single nationwide standard, something there has never been in US history), imagine how big a mess recounting the second choice votes would be. And the bigger the mess, the bigger the opportunity for "the elves" to monkeywrench the system and get what they want at the voters' expense.

[Garbo]

30. And have the highly populated states decide everything?

No thank you. That we be no better than what we have experienced already.

[rucky]

33. Be more careful next time

and you won't have to spend the next 4 years explaining yourself.

[Hippo_Tron]

35. No electoral college = easier for Diebold to rig elections...

All they have to do is beef up Bush's numbers everywhere by a small enough amount so that nobody gets suspicious.