The “wasted vote” phenomenon is not limited to just the electoral college. Winner-take-all/first-past-the-post systems are notorious for this effect. It is a primary reason why voter participation is lower in these countries than in countries with proportional systems. I would be far more likely to vote if the candidates I liked had any possible chance of winning.
How could you not vote? I mean people literally died to give you that right. How can you just sit back and let other people dictate the direction of your gov’t. It doesn’t make sense to me.
Yes, single member districts/first-past-the-post systems tend to create two dominant parties and lower voter turnout. On the other hand, proportional representation tends to result in unstable governing coalitions, because legislation still ends up being something that needs at least 50%+1 vote. So the question is where do you want to shift the locus of paralysis and alienation: between the public and the representatives, or between the representatives and the governing coalition. In the US, we’ve managed to get the worst of both worlds right now.
As for higgimond’s argument, it just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. It would be just as easy to say that the evidence is that there is massive voter turnout for electoral college-based elections, even higher than elections where there isn’t an electoral college in play. The counterargument to that is that we see that effect because the electoral college comes into play when the most important single office is on the line and that the effect of the presidency being on the ballot substantially overwhelms the effect of the electoral college on people’s perception of whether their vote is meaningful or not.
But if people can’t be bothered to vote when there isn’t an electoral college-type office on the line, and abstain simply because it’s a more local representative, then it’s hardly believable that they aren’t voting “because the Electoral college renders my vote meaningless,” whether that’s what they say or not. The real reason is “they can’t be bothered” no matter what the election, or possibly “they are protesting the entire system” (which includes more than just the EC), since they don’t vote whether their vote is channeled through an electoral college or not.
And if the electoral college really is alienating people so much, why is there so much more turnout for presidential elections at all? The main conclusion is that to the extent that the EC has any effect at all, it’s pretty marginal.
So, yeah, the electoral college is imperfect, and I do think we have to be worried that technologies now render it easier and easier to manipulate how electoral votes go, but people who say they don’t vote because of the electoral college are most likley just fishing for an excuse to explain why they don’t feel like voting at all. I’m not saying that these people should be forced to vote, I’m just saying that they should be willing to admit that the real reason is that they just don’t care that much about it.
At least we can agree on that.
But then why would voter turnout be lower in the U.S. than almost any other developed country? What is it about America that makes people less likely to care?
There’s voter alienation and the sense that votes don’t really influence very much. I agree with that. I just don’t think that “it’s because of the Electoral College.”
I joked in the last election that everyone is getting very excited about the election, the day when all US citizens, rich or poor, black or white, acquitted or only misdemeanor, when everyone, *everyone* gets a say in who it is that our corporations are going to bribe.
i feel like a real loser following this thread about the electoral college on a friday. thanks dicks.
I agree with Higgs–I think a lot of people don’t vote because they know their vote doesn’t matter. I live in Texas. Texas votes Republican. Therefore, a vote cast in Texas is a wasted vote.
If we moved to the popular-vote method, then my vote wouldn’t be wasted, and I’d be more inclined to vote. I think many people fees the same way I do.
Why don’t I vote? Mainly because of the two-party system, which is, in part, perpetuated by the electoral college. I hate Democrats because of their socialist economics. I hate Republicans because of their intolerance toward anybody who believes differently from their religious beliefs. And I think that these two parties are less interested in running the country, and more interested in pushing their party’s political agenda.
But there is no real viable third-party alternative. Nor will there ever be in my lifetime. And certainly not as long as there is an electoral college.
So Greenie, why don’t you vote for your congressman. There’s no electoral college, so now your vote matters more than if you were voting for President?
Or is it just that you don’t like the fact that your vote is just one of many thousands, and so you feel it gets washed out?
I have to disagree and I think your counter-arguments are pretty weak. More people turn out for presidential elections for two big reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with the EC. 1) People actually know something about the candidates. Do you honestly know ANYTHING about your US Congressman or your state or local politicians? If not, why would you bother to go out and vote for them? 2) Presidential elections are the electoral equivalent of Christmas and Easter for most Catholics, they don’t go to mass the other 50 weeks per year but Christmas and Easter are kind of a big deal so they make the effort. It’s not like just going those two weeks is going to keep them out of hell.
Going the other way though, there is no question that people don’t bother to vote because they think their vote doesn’t matter. Obviously other factors can contribute to that feeling, but if you can eliminate a factor like the structure of EC, why not do it? To say that it wouldn’t really change anything is a BS argument and you can’t really make that argument without trying it. If TX or FL used proportional awards GWB wouldn’t have won either election, so clearly it could make a difference. And who knows how many more democrats in TX would turn out if they thought their vote might help or how many republicans in CA? The answer is pretty simple, no one knows because the system makes their votes meaningless.
I would still like to hear an argument supporting why awarding EC votes based on congressional district or proportion to the state’s popular vote would be a bad thing.
I also think that it is pretty well documented that people don’t bother to show up at the polls late in the evening in cases where preliminary results have one candidate or the other winning easily and that there is a flood of late voters when a state is unexpectedly close. I believe that is part of the reason that the networks “call” states much later than they used to (they also don’t want to look stupid again, with admittedly might be the real reason).
My congressman is a local CPA and member of the First Baptist Country Club Church who has been in office for 20+ years. He has strong ties to the community, and bleeds a deep, deep shade of red. This is directly in line with the values of my congressional district. So as long as he runs, he’s getting re-elected.
That might change if another Republican were to challenge him. If that happens, then I might consider voting. But 1.) Chances are slim that he’ll ever get challenged by a Republican, and 2.) If he does, then that Republican will be another one who bleeds a deep, deep shade of red, so we be presented with a de facto false choice.
I could vote in some of the other elections, like my local sheriff. But let’s keep it real–I know absolutely nothing about my local sheriff (other than his name), and I know absolutely nothing about his competition (not even his name). I have no idea how they are different, so any vote that I cast will be a vote in total ignorance.
I could vote for my state Senator, but again–let’s keep it real. The Republican is going to win (since I live in Texas). I could have voted in the primaries, but I didn’t see much reason to vote for one sh*tty Republican over another sh*tty Republican. For what it’s worth, the less sh*tty Republican wound up winning, I think. Only time will tell how good or bad he really is. He has certainly stirred the DC pot, though. (Whether that’s good or bad.)
EDIT - Higgs posted while I was typing, but I’m with him 100%. EC bad–popular vote good.
I think there are several arguments here and we agree on some points and are getting other things crossed.
I agree that there is a sense of alienation and it’s driven by the sense that people’s individual votes don’t really matter. And I think that part of it is that we know that we are just one in a million voters, and it almost never happens that any candidate wins by just one vote. So if we know the way the majority is going, whether it’s our congressional district, or our state, or even the country as a whole, we can feel that our tiny 1/1,000,000th contribution isn’t worth waiting in line for 20 minutes or getting up extra early in the morning, particularly if it’s raining. [Added: The single-member district/first-past-the-post system exacerbates that, and I think that is far more relevant than the electoral college in terms of making votes feel ineffective.]
[This turns out to be what Greenman just said above - to which I say “I get that, but NONE of those particular objections would change if the President were elected instead by the popular vote.”]
It also takes a substantial amount of effort to inform yourself of many of the issues in any depth and to figure out where particular candidates stand on a whole host of issues, and to weigh whether you care more about taxes or abortion legislation or military spending and how that mix sums up in a particular voting option. So, for a lot of people the issue is: “It takes a lot of work, and my one little vote doesn’t really do very much.” And so, in some ways, if you aren’t all riled up about stuff, maybe it’s fine to decide that it’s not worth the effort. Ideally, if government is doing a decent job, people are reasonably happy about things and don’t feel much of an urge to rock the boat or make anything change.
There are advantages and disadvantages to using the electoral college system, and I would not be unhappy to see it go. But I don’t think it’s a major *cause* of voter apathy or a systemic cause of bad policy. Perhaps some people find it a very visible *symbol* of an underlying issue, which is that they feel that their vote is a weak weapon compared to those that organized groups and lobbyists have, which would by why they say that the EC is what stops them from voting, even for things where the EC isn’t relevant at all.
But that is different from saying that the EC actually is the thing that stops them from voting. What stops them from voting is the feeling that either their vote is too small a tool in a country of millions of other voters, or that their vote - even to the extent that it does determine the election outcome - is then rendered meaningless by the fact that the candidates then go to Washington (or elsewhere) where other factors determine what they do - lobbyists, party whips, foreign interests, run-of-the-mill greed, what they ate for breakfast, or any of a dozen other thigns that aren’t about who voted for them and why.
Not long ago, my local congressman was asked whether we should continue to intervene in affairs of Middle Eastern peoples, or whether we should downsize the military and make it more of a “real” defense force.
He responded, “If not us, then who? Who will pick up the torch of freedom?” (Yes, this was his real response.)
My immediate reaction was: I wanted to scream “WHAT THE F*CK DOES THAT MEAN???”
Well, I just picked this wheel up at my local record store:
To me the main problem is asymmetry - the lack of Negative Votes.
Imagine you could each give plus 1 to your favorite candidate or minus 1 to the candidate you despise the most. This could probably prevent some of the most corrupt, racist or just crazy candidates to get in congress - their corrupt, racist or crazy electorate would be nullified by the minus 1s… Politicians would need to care much more about how everyone (not only their +1 base) would feel - seems much more democratic to me.
This would also be more powerful to people protesting against their choices - a negative vote shows less faith in the system. Maybe if the president wins with negative votes a new election must happen.
I know it’s a frecking weird idea, but it feels really natural to me. The clear downside is that there’s no way any congress anywhere will ever vote for something like that - too much shame could ensue.
Elected office as a call option…
This concept of negative votes intrigues me, but I’m not quite sure I follow it entirely. When I step into the booth, would I have both a positive vote and a negative vote, or would I have to choose between casting a positive vote or a negative vote?
Watch the youtube link above. It sums my stance. I feel using my “voting currency” to vote for sh*tty candidates, is implicitely supporting the idea of sh*tty politicians. And that’s what I’d like to see change.
I’d rather see a single vote for person. People who think politicians are a bunch of crooks may help keep the worse ones out. People who really believe in a candidate can still vote for her/him. Over time, changes in the ratio of positive to negative may show how is the country’s mood in a clearer way.
Having both also allows elected candidates to get below zero. Maybe forcing a new election in that situation would spur more renovation.
I think this could be really nice for congress in many countries. Racists and religious extremists would probably get squashed. Crooks would have a harder time trying to get elected by exchanging votes for food, money or personal favors.
Do we only get to vote negative on an uptick? 