People calling for and end to the Electoral College

[Amira]

If the Electoral College were abolished, the candidates would only have to win a few key major cities, completely ignoring the rest of the country. I think it is best to keep the process how it is.

 

No matter what, large chunks of the country are going to get ignored.  I've nearly always voted in reliably red or reliably blue states and have never had a chance to go to a real political event with a real candidate.  Candidates need at least 60-65 million votes and that takes a lot more than a few major cities.  I agree that the areas that are ignored would change, but I don't think more people would get ignored.

Edited November 12, 2016 by Amira

[ChocolateReignRemix]

If the Electoral College were abolished, the candidates would only have to win a few key major cities, completely ignoring the rest of the country. I think it is best to keep the process how it is.

 

So you think living in a large city means someone's vote should be less valuable?  Why should the vote of a farmer in Iowa be weighted more heavily than the vote of a taxi driver in NYC?

[Loesje22000]

We are working on the American Elections for more then a week now, and we wondered what would happen if the electoral college would be kept, but 'the winner takes it all rule' would be non existing.

What consequences would that have?

 

France and Germany are republics too, but their president elections seem very different compared to the USA elections

(I know there are more republics in the world, but have to admit I'm not familiar with most of their election systems....)

[ChocolateReignRemix]

If the Electoral College were abolished, the candidates would only have to win a few key major cities, completely ignoring the rest of the country. I think it is best to keep the process how it is.

 

The bolded is not true.

[JumpyTheFrog]

I saw that Maine's proposition to make all state races instant run-off passed. I would love that option. It would be great for people who dislike both major candidates to be able to select someone they can tolerate without feeling like they are throwing their vote away.

 

At the very least, let's have all primaries be instant run-off, preferably on the same day. Then let's have primary day and election day be only a few months apart and both be national holidays where most places must close.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

We are working on the American Elections for more then a week now, and we wondered what would happen if the electoral college would be kept, but 'the winner takes it all rule' would be non existing.

What consequences would that have?

 

France and Germany are republics too, but their president elections seem very different compared to the USA elections

(I know there are more republics in the world, but have to admit I'm not familiar with most of their election systems....)

 

I believe (speculation but some polls support this) that voter turnout would go up, particularly in states which generally go to one party.

 

I am not sure if it would help one party more than another, as there are voters of both parties located in states where their vote is currently overwhelmed.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I saw that Maine's proposition to make all state races instant run-off passed. I would love that option. It would be great for people who dislike both major candidates to be able to select someone they can tolerate without feeling like they are throwing their vote away.

 

At the very least, let's have all primaries be instant run-off, preferably on the same day. Then let's have primary day and election day be only a few months apart and both be national holidays where most places must close.

 

I agree with all of this except the national holiday. And that is only because Congress could only require that federal offices/banks close.

[Leav97]

I'd like to see instant runoff voting and eliminating the winner takes all electoral college. OR instant runoff voting and popular vote.

[rocassie]

I have thought for a long time that our electoral college should be reformed. The all or nothing winning of electoral votes that most states adhere to doesn't really represent the voters in their states, in my opinion.  I would love to see the electoral votes given by district or by percentage of voters.  Maybe that whole win by 270 needs to be redone.   Although to be honest I haven't done the math or researched enough to determine if it is a more equatable distribution of votes.  I do think the electoral college allows for a little more equity among the states vs. the popular vote, but it still only takes 20% (roughly) of the states (if those vote the same way) to determine the outcome so I don't believe our current system is working either.  It is not reflective of how close most of the states races were.  

 

Although who knows, maybe if more people felt their vote counted, there would be more voters.  I know several people in real life who do not vote because their state is predominately one color. They feel like their vote doesn't make a difference.

 

 

 

 

[maize]

If the Electoral College were abolished, the candidates would only have to win a few key major cities, completely ignoring the rest of the country. I think it is best to keep the process how it is.

But not everyone in a city votes for the same candidate.

 

Right now, if 60% of folks in the major cities vote for candidate A and 40% vote for candidate B, there is a good chance all the electoral college votes for that state will go to candidate A. Without the electoral college (or at least without winner take all) the votes of the 40% who voted for candidate B would actually matter.

[Guest]

I see concerns on both sides. If you do not live in a swing state, often you feel that you don't count. There is also concern about faithless electors. While that is not super common, it has happened. The electors cast secret ballots so know one knows who didn't follow the custom and vote with the majority from their state. We do know of an instance from the Carter/Ford election in which a registered republican elector from Washington State cast an electoral vote for Carter in protest of the fact that he was angry with his party for not nominating Ronald Reagan. Since the election was not nail biting close in terms of the electoral college, that one unexpected vote going to the opposite direction did not change a thing. However, in a case where but say in the case of the Bush/Gore election in which the electoral college came in at 271 to 266, all it would have taken was for 2 electors from the republican party to be "faithless" and vote for Gore and neither would have received enough electoral votes to win the election thus throwing the election to the House of Representatives. Not a good situation. There was some concern about this at the time because of the mess in Florida that some republican elector with a strong sense of personal integrity might feel that the Florida vote may have been fraudulently declared for Bush, and in an act of personal honesty, throw a vote to Gore. If more than one felt that way, YIKES!

 

26 states have laws making it illegal for electors - who must be registered with their party - to vote against their party. However, due to the secret ballot, there is no way to pinpoint a faithless elector.

 

Due to the divisive nature of three of the last 5 elections in which the vote was bizarrely close and recounts were needed - this time around Michigan with its 16 electoral votes was only 13,000 count difference and if you knew what goes on in some our rural counties, you'd know that really that is too close to actually call Michigan without some serious, time consuming investigation - there is some serious concern about the electoral college not accurately representing the nation when things get this tight. The reality of this election is that there is enough of a difference that even with Michigan's 16, it doesn't matter. But we could easily see a situation like this again in the future.

 

Another argument which is also valid is that without the electoral college it is possible to elect POTUS by simple majority with only 11 states which represents less than 25% of the country due to concentrated population centers. This could potentially nullify the concerns and needs of 39 states should a candidate be so brazen and callous as to care only for those few population centers that elected him or her. With the electoral college as it stands now, this is a real long shot - not that it could never happen, but it isn't super likely - so they must "stump" for president across the states and not limit themselves to only those cities which would elect the president. It is considered the check and balance to having Los Angeles, Dallas/Fort Worth, Chicago, Miami, New York, Philadelphia, Houston, and San Antonio determine the election or to put it more succinctly, California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Illinois choose the president for the entire rest of the nation. When thought of this way, it suddenly doesn't look so good to have POTUS elected only by simple, majority vote. 5 cities speaking for the desires of 300 million people across 50 states. Not exactly ideal either.

 

What we have now doesn't appear to be working to well, but eliminating it could be equally as bad. One possible solution would be to add Puerto Rico to statehood thus increasing our count to 51, and then reducing the electoral college to 1 vote per state. This would prevent a tie and would also equalize the voice of North Dakotans with Californians. It would force candidates to pay attention to ALL of their constituents, not just heavy population centers. It also eliminates the possibility of faithless electors in the 26 states with laws against because if only ONE elector casts a vote for your state then you know if something goes wonky in the electoral college who to track down and penalize/incarcerate. One could even make the elector the governor and pass legislation that the governor faces recall if he/she votes against the majority rule of the state he/she represents. It is considered a meet in the middle solution to a complicated problem. Not perfect, but potentially less imbalanced.

 

None of this is much of a concern in elections like the Carter/Reagan, Reagan/Mondale, etc. in which the popular vote wasn't even in the ballpark of close and by land mass AND population there was a clear mandate of the people.

This is how I view it as well. As long as we are a republic I see the purpose of an electoral college system, especially given how easy it is to just run up the vote in a few population centers and steamroll the entire rest of the country. But the flip side is that citizens have votes weighted by region essentially. I don't mind voting for shares of electors and even my California family, who are republicans who get steamrolled by L.A, San Fran, and even much of San Diego, understand why the balance makes sense.

 

If the system was changed I think it would be wise to do it hand in hand with allowing the states that want secession to leave. A massive and fundamental reorganization of the remaining states and their votes would be a lot easier if the entire thing was restructured.

 

I'm still not convinced it needs it, since this is exactly how the electoral college is supposed to function.

[Tanaqui]

I'm still not convinced it needs it, since this is exactly how the electoral college is supposed to function.

 

No, it's not. If it were, the Constitution would explicitly forbid Faithless Electors, and it doesn't. Depending on your interpretation, the Electoral College is either a. a way to backdoor special rights for the rich and powerful in case the unwashed masses accidentally voted in a guy they didn't like or b. a way to prevent the people from accidentally voting in a popular demagogue. Because in the Constitution - and this is still law in 21 states - the electors can vote however they want without taking the popular vote into account at all.

[Bluegoat]

So you think living in a large city means someone's vote should be less valuable?  Why should the vote of a farmer in Iowa be weighted more heavily than the vote of a taxi driver in NYC?

 

That's a rather unlikely insinuation.

 

The way elections work has potential downsides, one of which is that getting elected requires appealing to the most voters.  An effective way to do that is to appeal to their interests, even when they ignore the best interests of other people.  In a country as large and diverse as the US, regional unity could be a real issue.

 

There is also a question of making sure that different constituencies ideas and experience are taken into account.  Is it likely that the views of urban populations are going to have the most insight in policy questions related to rural concerns? 

 

If paying attention to the rural voice on, say, agricultural policy, means getting voted out by more urban voters, it's going to be bad for governance for the nation as a whole.

 

Nation states aren't just made up of atomized individuals, they are made up of networks of communities as well.

[wendyroo]

If the Electoral College were abolished, the candidates would only have to win a few key major cities, completely ignoring the rest of the country. I think it is best to keep the process how it is.

 

I hear that a lot...but is it true?

 

Let's round the total US population to 300 million.  Let's assume that everyone votes ( :lol: ), so 51% is just over 150 million.

 

So, New York has 8 million people

+ LA which we will round up to 4 million

+ Chicago at 2.7 million

+ Houston at 2 million

+ Philly ~1.5 million

+ Pheonix ~1.5 million

+ San Antonio ~ 1.3 million

+ San Diego ~1.3 million

+ Dallas ~1.2

+ the next 10 largest cities which add up to 7 million

= 22.5 million = 7.5% of the population, certainly not enough to win.

 

Okay, so let's keep going until we have added up the top 50 cities.

That gets us to 38 million people = less than 13% of the total population.

 

Still a long way from a majority...so let's keep adding.

Cities 51-100 add up to 12.5 more million people.

That gets us to a total of 50.5 million people = less than 17% of the US population.

 

It is pretty easy to estimate the next 50 cities, because they are all around 200,000 people.

Top 150 cities = ~60.5 million = 20%

 

The 50 after that are all around 150,000 people.

Top 200 cities = 68 million = less than 23%

 

By the time we get to city 201, we are talking about Sterling Heights, Michigan, which I think we can all agree does not deserve to be lumped into the "key major city" category...and let's remember the hypothetical presidential candidate hasn't yet even garnered half the votes they need to win!!  Nearly half their votes have to come from people living in or around cities of less than 100,000 people.

 

The math just doesn't support the fear that a "handful" of cities could elect a president.

 

Wendy

[Guest]

No, it's not. If it were, the Constitution would explicitly forbid Faithless Electors, and it doesn't. Depending on your interpretation, the Electoral College is either a. a way to backdoor special rights for the rich and powerful in case the unwashed masses accidentally voted in a guy they didn't like or b. a way to prevent the people from accidentally voting in a popular demagogue. Because in the Constitution - and this is still law in 21 states - the electors can vote however they want without taking the popular vote into account at all.

The elector issue is handled state by state, with many having fines and criminal charges for this behavior. That issue can be fixed quickly by any state legislature passing a bill and adjusting their administrative codes to penalize the behavior as severely as they want. It's not even a complicated bill to write and this in no way invalidates the system as a whole. It's a non issue and a fixable one, but your beef is really one to take up with a petition or legislative push in each state that doesn't bind electors, not federally.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

That's a rather unlikely insinuation.

 

That isn't an insinuation - it is a fact.  California has fewer electoral votes per capita than Iowa.

[Guest]

I hear that a lot...but is it true?

 

Let's round the total US population to 300 million. Let's assume that everyone votes ( :lol: ), so 51% is just over 150 million.

 

So, New York has 8 million people

+ LA which we will round up to 4 million

+ Chicago at 2.7 million

+ Houston at 2 million

+ Philly ~1.5 million

+ Pheonix ~1.5 million

+ San Antonio ~ 1.3 million

+ San Diego ~1.3 million

+ Dallas ~1.2

+ the next 10 largest cities which add up to 7 million

= 22.5 million = 7.5% of the population, certainly not enough to win.

 

Okay, so let's keep going until we have added up the top 50 cities.

That gets us to 38 million people = less than 13% of the total population.

 

Still a long way from a majority...so let's keep adding.

Cities 51-100 add up to 12.5 more million people.

That gets us to a total of 50.5 million people = less than 17% of the US population.

 

It is pretty easy to estimate the next 50 cities, because they are all around 200,000 people.

Top 150 cities = ~60.5 million = 20%

 

The 50 after that are all around 150,000 people.

Top 200 cities = 68 million = less than 23%

 

By the time we get to city 201, we are talking about Sterling Heights, Michigan, which I think we can all agree does not deserve to be lumped into the "key major city" category...and let's remember the hypothetical presidential candidate hasn't yet even garnered half the votes they need to win!! Nearly half their votes have to come from people living in or around cities of less than 100,000 people.

 

The math just doesn't support the fear that a "handful" of cities could elect a president.

 

Wendy

You're not counting their suburbs in those tallies, which are effectively the same demographically as the cities proper and in urban sprawl make a massive difference. The greater Seattle area and Portland also weight this heavily, and there are others. Running up the vote in a few key regions is a common strategy in states like NY and California already, and getting rid of the federal elector system would exacerbate the problem further.

 

ETA - I noticed the top 200 tally down toward the bottom. That still doesn't properly aggregate the totals for suburban groupings but it's a better litmus than a smaller number of those cities. It still doesn't really account for population density and the unique concerns of each state, regardless of size. As long as we are a federation of states, something like an electoral college is needed. We aren't one homogenous country and we're never intended to be. I do support letting California and Oregon break off and be their own happy little countries, then reorganizing and reassessing the remaining states. You'd likely end up with seven or ten super states and a more parliamentary system.

Edited November 11, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[wendyroo]

That's a rather unlikely insinuation.

 

Insinuation?

 

The fact that a New Yorker's vote is worth less than an Iowan's is the foundation of the current electoral college.

 

Wendy

[ChocolateReignRemix]

This is how I view it as well. As long as we are a republic I see the purpose of an electoral college system, especially given how easy it is to just run up the vote in a few population centers and steamroll the entire rest of the country. But the flip side is that citizens have votes weighted by region essentially. I don't mind voting for shares of electors and even my California family, who are republicans who get steamrolled by L.A, San Fran, and even much of San Diego, understand why the balance makes sense.

 

If the system was changed I think it would be wise to do it hand in hand with allowing the states that want secession to leave. A massive and fundamental reorganization of the remaining states and their votes would be a lot easier if the entire thing was restructured.

 

I'm still not convinced it needs it, since this is exactly how the electoral college is supposed to function.

 

Yet other republics manage to govern themselves without an electoral college.  And in reality the electoral votes are over weighted in favor of smaller states.

[maize]

You're not counting their suburbs in those tallies, which are effectively the same demographically as the cities proper and in urban sprawl make a massive difference. The greater Seattle area and Portland also weight this heavily, and there are others. Running up the vote in a few key regions is a common strategy in states like NY and California already, and getting rid of the federal elector system would exacerbate the problem further.

 

ETA - I noticed the top 200 tally down toward the bottom. That still doesn't properly aggregate the totals for suburban groupings but it's a better litmus than a smaller number of those cities. It still doesn't really account for population density and the unique concerns of each state, regardless of size.

But large metroplotian areas never vote uniformly. Our electoral system essentially disenfrachises anyone who votes against the majority vote in a large metropolitan area just as surely as it does the less populous rural areas. Edited November 11, 2016 by maize

[regentrude]

That's a rather unlikely insinuation.

 

 

 

No, It is the math. Number of voters represented by one electoral vote differs widely between states - a good map is here:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2012/11/presidential_election_a_map_showing_the_vote_power_of_all_50_states.html

 

Some individual votes are considered worth more than others.

"In Wyoming, there are 143,000 people for each of its three electoral votes. The states with the weakest votes are New York, Florida, and California. These states each have around 500,000 people for each electoral vote.

In other words, one Wyoming voter has roughly the same vote power as four New York voters. "

 

Edited November 11, 2016 by regentrude

[Tanaqui]

Arctic Mama, I didn't say I have a "beef". I said that the purpose of the electoral college is not to balance the power of rural and urban areas. Which it's not. But you don't have to take my word for it, listen to Hamilton:

 

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.

 

(That would've been a much easier read with a beat.)

 

So it's not a non-issue. It could theoretically come into force in this election. I mean, when even the man himself thinks the Electoral College is "undemocratic", why shouldn't the electors in those remaining 21 states respect his wishes and vote with the popular vote?

 

As for those of us who hate the Electoral College (which, at last polling, was unpopular among both Republicans and Democrats), we can do an end run around it without having to go through Congress. Write your state lawmakers and encourage them to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Once enough states join (enough for 270 electoral votes), member states will always vote with the popular national vote.

Edited November 11, 2016 by Tanaqui

[Amira]

You're not counting their suburbs in those tallies, which are effectively the same demographically as the cities proper and in urban sprawl make a massive difference. The greater Seattle area and Portland also weight this heavily, and there are others. Running up the vote in a few key regions is a common strategy in states like NY and California already, and getting rid of the federal elector system would exacerbate the problem further.

 

ETA - I noticed the top 200 tally down toward the bottom. That still doesn't properly aggregate the totals for suburban groupings but it's a better litmus than a smaller number of those cities. It still doesn't really account for population density and the unique concerns of each state, regardless of size.

 

I added up the metro areas for those same nine cities and it came to 70 million people. About 70% of those people are eligible to vote and 60% of registered voters actually vote on a good day, so let's assume in those 9 cities that there are actually 30 million potential votes.

 

A candidate needs about 60-65 million votes to win. Even if they got 60% of the vote in all of those 9 cities, a very generous estimate, they'd still only have about 18 million votes, less than a third of what they need. You'd need a lot more than nine metro areas to get to 60-65 million votes.

Edited November 12, 2016 by Amira

[wendyroo]

You're not counting their suburbs in those tallies, which are effectively the same demographically as the cities proper and in urban sprawl make a massive difference. The greater Seattle area and Portland also weight this heavily, and there are others. Running up the vote in a few key regions is a common strategy in states like NY and California already, and getting rid of the federal elector system would exacerbate the problem further.

 

ETA - I noticed the top 200 tally down toward the bottom. That still doesn't properly aggregate the totals for suburban groupings but it's a better litmus than a smaller number of those cities. It still doesn't really account for population density and the unique concerns of each state, regardless of size.

 

I don't buy it.

 

I looked at the election results around Seattle.

Yes, in the city proper, Clinton won by a landslide.  In the surrounding counties, however, she barely won the majority.  She certainly was not raking in millions of votes from the Seattle suburbs.

 

Plus, it is one thing to say that it is important to limit the power of urbanites to unite and overwhelm the rest of the country, but then to say that we have to devalue urban and suburban votes in order to even the playing field...that seems to be un-evening it in the other direction to the point that a rural vote is worth ridiculously more than anyone else's.

 

Wendy

[Audrey]

This is an old topic that surfaces every time an election is close or nearly close. It's largely an issue of sour grapes for most complainers.  It is an antiquated system, but nothing ever comes of complaining about it and calling for change of it, and I am very sure nothing will come of it again.

[Guest]

But large meyroplotian areas never vote uniformly. Our electoral system essentially disenfrachises anyone who votes against the majority vote in a large metropolitan area just as surely as it does the less populous rural areas.

And a simple majority wouldn't do the same? That's the nature of any sort of two party system. The electoral college distributes that out a bit more evenly by weighting each state to try and balance out the disparate populations and needs. The tyranny of the majority would get worse and not better with it gone as long as we have the kind of system we do. You cannot remedy that without coalition governments. In a representative republic the system isn't designed for simple majorities to guide much of anything, very much on purpose.

 

I maintain the electoral college functioned as it should. Now whether each state wants to talk of apportioning electors differently makes sense, but generally speaking most states have declined to split electors because it makes their state less of a 'pot' to be valued by a candidate and worked for when each one knows they're guaranteed 30-40% of them just by party affiliation.

[Tanaqui]

Generally speaking most states have declined to split electors because it makes their state less of a 'pot' to be valued by a candidate and worked for

 

I just want to quote this to drive that point home. The argument that we can't ditch the EC because candidates would therefore only focus on most populated areas is a smokescreen. As it is, candidates only focus on a few states - and that's because of the EC.

[LucyStoner]

(jumping in)

 

I also understand civics...as well as the historical basis for the Electoral College. But it was structured in a day when people were much more stationary and travel across state lines--to the point of residing in four or five different states per voting lifetime, as many people do now--was not even envisioned. IMO it makes little sense to weight a vote depending on where the voter happens to be living in an election year.

 

Must add that, for the sake of national stability, any change in the Electoral College/popular vote system will have to happen during a NON election year, since yelling for it right after an election is destabilizing and probably destructive.

 

SWB

I agree.

 

I understand the history, reasons and even the modern case for the electoral college. Not agreeing with the continuation of the electoral college does not in anyway make me ignorant of civics.

 

My opinion would be the same regardless of the electoral outcome and who I personally wanted to see win.

 

The present system means that the race is only conducted with a small minority of states, citizens and their issues in mind. It disempowers and ignores people who live in states where the outcome is a forgone conclusion. People on all points of the political spectrum.

 

That said, I don't see it changing anytime soon. If ever.

Edited November 11, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Amira]

We could keep the EC and largely fix the problem if states chose to allocate their electors proportionally. The percentages wouldn't match up perfectly of course, but it would be better.

 

But there's no more incentive for state legislatures to do that than to get an amendment passed so it doesn't really help.

Edited November 11, 2016 by Amira

[Guest]

I don't buy it.

 

I looked at the election results around Seattle.

Yes, in the city proper, Clinton won by a landslide. In the surrounding counties, however, she barely won the majority. She certainly was not raking in millions of votes from the Seattle suburbs.

 

Plus, it is one thing to say that it is important to limit the power of urbanites to unite and overwhelm the rest of the country, but then to say that we have to devalue urban and suburban votes in order to even the playing field...that seems to be un-evening it in the other direction to the point that a rural vote is worth ridiculously more than anyone else's.

 

Wendy

I moved from a big blue state to a small red one, and legislative power is actually part of it. I sit on state board, I have a family member in the state legislature, I volunteer in the state party apparatus. These things are much harder to do in a more populous state, but here my individual efforts have actually yielded demonstrable change for my family and community. That is absolutely true.

 

It's also very much a choice in a system that allows states to have individual and specific power that is leveled out across the union, but acknowledging the varied composition of each state. I have never regretted leaving California for any number of reasons related to quality of life, and political effectiveness is part of that.

 

Like I said, I am open to letting anyone who wants to leave the union and form their own countries and reorganizing and evaluating what remains, and even switching to a coalition governing system instead of a representative republic, that could be done. State lines could be redrawn by coalition or vote. Any number of things could happen. But you will not see the electoral college go away until the point that a new system, top down, replaces it. It's fundamentally integrated into the way the republic works, down to the nuts and bolts of congressional apportioning and house seats. I really don't see a path for changing just that one bit, even if it was the best choice (it's not).

[ChocolateReignRemix]

This is an old topic that surfaces every time an election is close or nearly close. It's largely an issue of sour grapes for most complainers.  It is an antiquated system, but nothing ever comes of complaining about it and calling for change of it, and I am very sure nothing will come of it again.

 

Well in fairness it isn't easy to change on a national level.

 

 

[Guest]

I just want to quote this to drive that point home. The argument that we can't ditch the EC because candidates would therefore only focus on most populated areas is a smokescreen. As it is, candidates only focus on a few states - and that's because of the EC.

It would change where they would focus and unbalance it further toward the populous areas, just like the House of Representatives is heavily weighted toward more populous states and the Senate has proportional balance. The electoral college and popular vote work together in a similar fashion, for similar reasons.

 

Like I said, you could change the whole boat, but not just remove the one plank.

Edited November 11, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[FaithManor]

Oh and I am all for the 51st state being Wadhingron DC as well or adding both Puerto Rico and D.C. but if thr electoral college were to be reduced to the one pet state scenario, we would need to add another territory so we have 53 instead of an even number in ordr to avoid a tie.

[maize]

And a simple majority wouldn't do the same? That's the nature of any sort of two party system. The electoral college distributes that out a bit more evenly by weighting each state to try and balance out the disparate populations and needs. The tyranny of the majority would get worse and not better with it gone as long as we have the kind of system we do. You cannot remedy that without coalition governments. In a representative republic the system isn't designed for simple majorities to guide much of anything, very much on purpose.

 

I maintain the electoral college functioned as it should. Now whether each state wants to talk of apportioning electors differently makes sense, but generally speaking most states have declined to split electors because it makes their state less of a 'pot' to be valued by a candidate and worked for when each one knows they're guaranteed 30-40% of them just by party affiliation.

Counting each vote equally is not disenfranchisement. Losing the election is not disenfranchisement.

 

Nature of a two party system? Gah! Getting rid of the two party system is one of my primary objectives

[Tanaqui]

Nature of a two party system? Gah! Getting rid of the two party system is one of my primary objectives

 

Approval voting or ranked voting. I don't know if it would get rid of the two party system, but at this point I think it couldn't possibly be worse than what we've got.

 

Counting each vote equally is not disenfranchisement. Losing the election is not disenfranchisement.

 

Gerrymandering is disenfranchisement, though. And there have been actual attacks on voter rights for the entire election cycle. How would the vote have gone differently if the Voting Rights Act hadn't been torn apart?

 

Edited November 11, 2016 by Tanaqui

[LucyStoner]

I don't buy it.

 

I looked at the election results around Seattle.

Yes, in the city proper, Clinton won by a landslide. In the surrounding counties, however, she barely won the majority. She certainly was not raking in millions of votes from the Seattle suburbs.

 

Plus, it is one thing to say that it is important to limit the power of urbanites to unite and overwhelm the rest of the country, but then to say that we have to devalue urban and suburban votes in order to even the playing field...that seems to be un-evening it in the other direction to the point that a rural vote is worth ridiculously more than anyone else's.

 

Wendy

m

The Seattle suburbs/extended metro area are all in King county and the county just north and just south, which are blue. The county directly to the east of King county is pretty rural.

 

There aren't multiple millions of voters outside of the core populated counties, which all appear blue on the linked map and have shifted more and more blue through the decades.

 

The city has moved to the suburbs. Case in point: me. And Ezells in Woodinville and Mill Creek, lol.

 

If you drill down to the legislative and precincts you will see that strong support for Clinton was not limited to the city limit proper. This is a big change from 20-30 years ago when Seattle voted a lot differently than many of the adjacent suburbs.

Edited November 11, 2016 by LucyStoner

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I am still confused as to why some claim the electoral college is a requirement for a republic when other republics don't seem to need one.

Edited November 11, 2016 by ChocolateReignRemix

[maize]

I would have been arguing just as vehemently against our current system had the other candidate won. This is not about who won this or any election--it is about whether the system is the best we can devise to fairly represent the citizens of this country.

 

A president is meant to represent all of us. Because of this, I believe that each citizen's vote should count equally.

 

The concern about whether the needs of more rural states are fairly represented in government is, IMO, reasonably addressed by the split houses of Congress. I am personally content to leave that compromise as is (with the less populous states vastly disproportionate in power in the senate) without also ceding to those states disproportionate representation in the election of a president.

Edited November 11, 2016 by maize

[MistyMountain]

I understand the reasons why we have a electoral college and how it works but I do not think it is the best system. I much rather have a system where everyone's vote was weighed equally. People should not get more of a say because they live in a swing state or a more spread out area. There still could be standards for president. A tyrannical leader can get elected under the current system. We do need more than two main parties that represent a wider spectrum.

[Guest]

That isn't an insinuation - it is a fact. California has fewer electoral votes per capita than Iowa.

But, isn't that vital to keep things in balance? What would keep the needs of Cali from overshadowing the needs of a less populated area without the electoral college?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

But, isn't that vital to keep things in balance? What would keep the needs of Cali from overshadowing the needs of a less populated area without the electoral college?

 

Because it shouldn't be about area - it should be about the people actually casting votes.  And smaller states already have equal representation in the Senate.

[Audrey]

Well in fairness it isn't easy to change on a national level.

 

 

Understood.

 

I think what it boils down to is that, on this issue, it's always all talk, no action. 

 

Yes, it would be a lot of work to enact this change, but no one has ever persevered and followed through with the required action before, and I don't think it will be any different this time.  I would love to eat crow on this, though. 

[Bluegoat]

That isn't an insinuation - it is a fact.  California has fewer electoral votes per capita than Iowa.

 

You insinuated that she thinks that some peoples votes are worth more than others.

 

It's very similar to saying that a person who believes in measures within the economic system, like different tax rates or public education,  to offset the tendency of capital to become concentrated, believes that some people should have to work harder than others. 

 

It's putting the most obviously unacceptable, not to mention unlikely, interpretation on her reasoning.

[fraidycat]

You insinuated that she thinks that some peoples votes are worth more than others.

 

 

They are. Period.

 

As Regentrude already pointed out. One vote in Wyoming = one vote.

 

To get the same vote in New York, I have to vote and convince three of my friends to vote the same way to = one vote. So my vote in NY = 1/4 of a vote.

 

That's not insinuation, it's fact. Plain and simple. You can philosophise all you want, but this is not a philosophy discussion, it's a Math discussion.

 

One will always be "worth more" than 1/4.

Edited November 11, 2016 by fraidycat

[Bluegoat]

 

No, It is the math. Number of voters represented by one electoral vote differs widely between states - a good map is here:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2012/11/presidential_election_a_map_showing_the_vote_power_of_all_50_states.html

 

Some individual votes are considered worth more than others.

"In Wyoming, there are 143,000 people for each of its three electoral votes. The states with the weakest votes are New York, Florida, and California. These states each have around 500,000 people for each electoral vote.

In other words, one Wyoming voter has roughly the same vote power as four New York voters. "

 

 

 

The insinuation was about motives - the implication that some people are worth more than others if voting isn't just the straight popular vote.

 

You are assuming the votes would be worth the same otherwise, or that they are meant to be worth the same.

 

The US is a federal system, people act in more than one role, both as citizens of a state, and as individual citizens of the nation.  In presidential elections, they are doing both at the same time, which is why their electoral college votes are based on population + two more per state (just as each state has two senators.)

 

It's entirely possible to think the popular vote is not the right way to vote for a president without thinking that some people are worth more than others in a more holistic sense.

[Bluegoat]

It's true other republics don't have electoral colleges, but the US is unique in it's system in many other ways as well.  And if you look at other countries that are federations of sorts, they do often have various ways of trying to create a sense of unity in the leadership at the national level.

 

Sometimes those fails, as well - and generally the outcome when there are regions that don't feel represented in the national leadership isn't that great.  Look at the problems in the EU, or the difficulties with regionalism in the UK (not just Scotland or N.Ireland but the London/not-London divide, or rural urban issues.)  Here in Canada there are the First Nations governments, Quebec, the alienation of Western Canada, even in the East you get some level of regional factionalism.  You can find regionalist factions in Spain, in Belgium....

 

Devolving into regional factionalism is a huge problem in modern nation-states, even when they have representational governments.

[Julie Smith]

[bookbard]

Don't know about the electoral college. In Australia there's a representative for each local area (not state), and you vote for them - they will be either a major party or an independent. The group with the biggest number of representative gets to choose the prime minister. Sometimes you do feel like your vote doesn't count, as your local area has voted a certain way for 20 years. Ours however changed hands this year which was exciting.

 

But then we have the system where you don't just vote for the person you want, you vote for everyone in order from the person you want most to the person you want least. That way, even if you've voted for an outlier, your second choice is counted. So you can't 'waste' a vote the way you can in the US. It also means there are more smaller parties represented in parliament, like the Greens. It's not entirely fair (the Greens won 10% of the vote but have less than 1% of seats), but it's better than nothing. 

[Farrar]

And you didn't even mention how undemocratic the overall system is for DC.

 

Yeah. I restrained myself. :D

 

I feel like we get an okay deal electoral college speaking. We're a major urban center but there's a 1:220,000 ratio of electors to population. Other major urban centers don't fare so well because they're more likely to be in states with fewer electoral votes per person. Like, everyone in California gets 1:707,000 people, so that includes LA, SF, etc. NY'ers get 1:681,000. Bostonites (and the state of Massachusetts) gets 1:613,000. Chicagoans are at 1:644,000. Texans, so that includes Dallas and Houston, etc. have 1:709,000.

 

So, DC'ers get more electoral votes per person than any of the largest American cities. We're closer to being on par with the good people of more rural centered states like Wyoming (1:195,000), Vermont (1:209,000), New Hampshire, Alaska, etc. (Sorry, I ran out of steam for doing the math...).

 

But, um, that's not anything I'm arguing for. In the context of a confederation, it makes a vague amount of sense. In the context of the federal government today, it's bonkers. I don't know how you argue for democratic ideals (small d, just to be clear) and argue for it.

Edited November 11, 2016 by Farrar

[luuknam]

FWIW, I just looked up the population and the number of electoral college votes circa 1788-1790. It gets a little tricky, because you have to decide what to do with the slave population, but anyway, the most populous state, Virginia had 12 votes, and the smallest, Delaware, had 3. If I include the slaves, Delaware's votes counted about 2.5 times as much as Virginia's, whereas if I leave them out, Delaware's votes counted about twice as much as Virginia's. I haven't done the math with the 3/5ths, and I don't think it's super relevant, since they weren't voting anyway, so I'm inclined to say that the number without slaves makes the most sense, which is the 2 times number.

 

This is a much smaller difference than today, where the largest state is California, with 55 votes, and if I counted correctly, 8 states have 3 votes each, of which Wyoming has the fewest people. Wyoming's votes count over 3.6 times as much as California's (based on estimated 2015 population).

 

There's a big difference between a vote counting 2 times as much (as in the original) or a vote counting 3.6 times as much (as in today). Of course, we don't know what the founding fathers would've thought of it - I'm just saying that they may not have intended the discrepancy to be *that* big.