Thanks for the correction, Portchy and Britfan. I think America is somewhat similiarly tempered with England in that we tend to shun extreme Political viewpoints as well. I have a fair amount of Republican friends, and I'm always saying how I agree with limiting Govt. and fiscal responsibility, but the GOP's allegiance to the Religious Whackos and they're insistence in poking their noses in people's private lives is why I could never be a Republican. The Dems have their own issues, which is why I'm not a Democrat. I'm learning more about and leaning towards the Libertarian Party but a fellow on another site told me even that party isn't what it used to be. They still look like the sanest bunch of folks in the building so far.

I agree that the Electoral college should go; however, to do so would would require a constitutional amendment. That being said, each state can apportion its electoral votes any way it wants to. What we need is a grass roots effort to mitigate the electoral college by apportioning by congressional districts or dividing the votes in each state as per the percentage. This would be much more fair and it wouldn't require an amendment.

Well, the thing to remember is that you don't ever really vote directly for your candidate. You just vote for the people who have promised to vote for your candidate. You voted for fourteen people in New Jersey who promised to vote for Gary Johnson, just like I voted for eleven people in Tennessee who promised to vote for Barack Obama. Our votes weren't stolen or wasted. They were just overwhelmed by other votes for other candidates.

That said, I do like the idea of reforming the electoral college via proportional representation. The biggest question I have is how that would affect choosing the winner. As it stands, the President requires 270 electoral votes to get elected. In a close race, with votes assigned to third-party candidates, what if no one in the race reaches 270? Is there a mechanism in place to allow for a plurality to win instead of a majority? Say, a situation shook out where Obama got 268, Romney got 255 and Johnson got 15. Does our current system allow for Obama to be declared the winner because he got the most votes or would we be dealing with a situation where each side would be offering favors and the like to Johnson in exchange for his votes?

The system as it stands, should that situation occur, calls for a session of the House of Reps. to meet in order to elect a president. They choose from the top 3 candidates and vote by state. Each state is required to vote as one, winner is decided by whoever gets 26 of the 50 states. Voting continues until a winner is declared. This has happened twice in our history, once in 1800 with Jefferson and Adams and then again in 1824 with Jackson and Quincy Adams. Interesting reading by the way.

The system as it stands, should that situation occur, calls for a session of the House of Reps. to meet in order to elect a president. They choose from the top 3 candidates and vote by state. Each state is required to vote as one, winner is decided by whoever gets 26 of the 50 states. Voting continues until a winner is declared. This has happened twice in our history, once in 1800 with Jefferson and Adams and then again in 1824 with Jackson and Quincy Adams. Interesting reading by the way.

See, I suppose that would be the only thing that would be worse than what FPW was describing. You vote for President. Your guys wins the popular vote. He even gets the highest total in the electoral vote. And then he's denied the Presidency because the House, which is dominated by the party opposed to him, votes their guy in.

I like the idea of proportional awarding of electoral votes, but I don't want to monkey with the system in such a way as to produce some kind of crisis every couple of election cycles or so. I don't know. I might post this concept on the fivethirtyeight.com site and see what Nate Silver makes of it.

See, I suppose that would be the only thing that would be worse than what FPW was describing. You vote for President. Your guys wins the popular vote. He even gets the highest total in the electoral vote. And then he's denied the Presidency because the House, which is dominated by the party opposed to him, votes their guy in.

I like the idea of proportional awarding of electoral votes, but I don't want to monkey with the system in such a way as to produce some kind of crisis every couple of election cycles or so. I don't know. I might post this concept on the fivethirtyeight.com site and see what Nate Silver makes of it.

Thats what happened in the election of 1824. Jackson won both the plurality of the popular and electoral vote, however, upon going to the House, where they were more inclined towards Quincy Adams, Adams was given the presidency by then Speaker of the House, Henry Clay. Huge controversy, not helped by the fact that Clay was then awarded with the Secretary of State position.

Though I do agree with you that something like that occuring again would be a travesty, I think that speaks more towards the two party system we currently have than the system itself. Its too easy to cut backroom deals when you are only dealing with two parties. You basically have an Us vs Them mentality. Introduce a few more parties into the system, parties with real clout and real differences, and this deadlock that we have would break down, I think.

Thats what happened in the election of 1824. Jackson won both the plurality of the popular and electoral vote, however, upon going to the House, where they were more inclined towards Quincy Adams, Adams was given the presidency by then Speaker of the House, Henry Clay. Huge controversy, not helped by the fact that Clay was then awarded with the Secretary of State position.

Though I do agree with you that something like that occuring again would be a travesty, I think that speaks more towards the two party system we currently have than the system itself. Its too easy to cut backroom deals when you are only dealing with two parties. You basically have an Us vs Them mentality. Introduce a few more parties into the system, parties with real clout and real differences, and this deadlock that we have would break down, I think.

Actually, it sounds to me like you'd be far more likely to have backroom deals cut with multiple parties than with two. In other countries that have strong third parties you usually have coalition governments in which two or more parties specifically makes deals with each other to share power/interests. I'll also note that in those countries the position of president doesn't actually exist as we understand it. They have two positions, a head of state (to deal with foreign policy) and a head of government (to deal with domestic issues). I'm not saying that proportional awards in conjunction with a strong third (or fourth or fifth) party would be a bad thing, but it would likely lead to some serious structural changes in the government and probably the Constitution.

Actually, it sounds to me like you'd be far more likely to have backroom deals cut with multiple parties than with two. In other countries that have strong third parties you usually have coalition governments in which two or more parties specifically makes deals with each other to share power/interests. I'll also note that in those countries the position of president doesn't actually exist as we understand it. They have two positions, a head of state (to deal with foreign policy) and a head of government (to deal with domestic issues). I'm not saying that proportional awards in conjunction with a strong third (or fourth or fifth) party would be a bad thing, but it would likely lead to some serious structural changes in the government and probably the Constitution.

Actually we should just keep going the way we are.

Got it.

Actually we should just keep going the way we are.

Got it.

No, you don't "got it." Multiple parties roughly equal strength might be a good thing or a bad thing. It will be a different thing. America has traditionally been a two-party state. From the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans to the Democrats and Republicans, two parties have shared or alternated governing power with third parties doing little more than playing spoiler for one of the two main parties (ie the Reform party in 1992 splitting votes from the Republicans and helping Clinton win the White House).

Now, you toss that out, you'll probably end up with a government that looks a lot like those of European Democracies. That's not necessarily bad or good, but it is different. That's all that I'm saying.

Actually, it sounds to me like you'd be far more likely to have backroom deals cut with multiple parties than with two. In other countries that have strong third parties you usually have coalition governments in which two or more parties specifically makes deals with each other to share power/interests. I'll also note that in those countries the position of president doesn't actually exist as we understand it. They have two positions, a head of state (to deal with foreign policy) and a head of government (to deal with domestic issues). I'm not saying that proportional awards in conjunction with a strong third (or fourth or fifth) party would be a bad thing, but it would likely lead to some serious structural changes in the government and probably the Constitution.

I suppose I should have clarified what I meant. As it stands its too easy to cut backroom deals between the two Parties, because of there only being two parties, who superficial differences aside often have the same interests in mind. Introduce serious third, fourth or fifth parties and you might find those interests would be diluted. Would you still have backroom deals, yes, but more interests/sides would be represented. Regardless of what you think of the Tea Party, they had some clout there for a limited time and because of that they had both Dems and Reps coming to them, having their opinions heard, ultimately influencing them, if only for a small amount and limited time.

I suppose it should also be mentioned that I am for "some serious structural change". The system is broken as it stands.