People calling for and end to the Electoral College

[Slartibartfast]

I think the following (which may be crazy)

 

I think we should get rid of the electoral college or change it so each vote counts the same. In more populated states there is one electoral vote per 500,000 people while in less populated states there is 1 electoral vote per less than 150,000. It takes four votes in California to equal one in Wyoming and that is not ok.

 

I think we should move to a preferential voting system

 

I don't think states should have party primaries on different days.

 

I think we should have all the primary candidates on one ballot and we should be able to vote for 1 in each.

Edited November 13, 2016 by Slartibartfast

[Slartibartfast]

It causes campaigning to be restricted to only a tiny minority of states. You only have to look around during an election year to see that.

 

It's kinda like that anyways. People mostly campaign in swing states.

[Amy in NH]

This is supposed to be a government of the *people*. Not the states. Not the cities. Not some random group of electors. It is the votes of each *citizen* that should count. And it is obvious that right now they don't count.

[maize]

I found the wikipedia article on ranked voting quite interesting: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting_system

[maize]

From what I know of the writing of the constitution, it doesn't seem that the authors foresaw the two-party gridlock their system turned into.

 

Does anyone know for sure? Was this something they considered? My impression is that it was more of an accidental than an intended effect of the processes they put in motion.

[Guest]

From what I know of the writing of the constitution, it doesn't seem that the authors foresaw the two-party gridlock their system turned into.

 

Does anyone know for sure? Was this something they considered? My impression is that it was more of an accidental than an intended effect of the processes they put in motion.

Polarized legislatures were pretty much a guarantee by virtue of the composition of the system and simple majority/veto proof majority rules. This wasn't some accidental side effect, but the composition of those two sides and how they aligned with the public probably wasn't well known at the time since it is a reflection of positions on current events as much as worldview and civics. Gridlock in congress is arguably a good thing, to prevent too much, too rapid, or too sweeping of change to the country during a single election cycle.

 

I should add it doesn't disallow coalition governing and alignment but it doesn't require it like a parliamentary system and there is little benefit to a party co opting minority views to gain governing power. It can happen but it's not something that is naturally advantageous which is why we don't see it. The parties end up functioning that way, aligning vaguely similar groups under the banner of a single party, rather than parties with highly specific and narrow identities and platforms. This is true of both democrats and republicans.

Edited November 13, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[Amira]

From what I know of the writing of the constitution, it doesn't seem that the authors foresaw the two-party gridlock their system turned into.

 

Does anyone know for sure? Was this something they considered? My impression is that it was more of an accidental than an intended effect of the processes they put in motion.

 

In my opinion, not only did they not foresee two-party gridlock because there wasn't much historical precedence for them to look at, they didn't foresee a contentious two-party system at all or they wouldn't have made the second-place finisher the VP.

[hepatica]

I have read this discussion with such interest. We have such thoughtful members on this board! 

 

So far this discussion has focused on balancing the interests of small and large states, but it hasn't really focused on the real reason the electoral college was included in the constitution. A direct national election of the President was, in fact, proposed at the constitutional convention, but James Madison himself argued that the southern states would never ratify such a constitution because so much of the southern population was made up of slaves (who could not vote, obviously). So the electoral college was one of many compromises that were made to convince slave states to ratify the constitution. And, it worked! Look how many of our early Presidents were from the state of VA. That would not have been possible without the electoral college.

 

I think it is time for the electoral college to go. Small states are still significantly overrepresented in Congress (in both House and Senate), and we already treat the Presidential election as a national election (with most voters completely ignoring/not understanding the electoral college anyway). It should have been eliminated in the post civil war constitutional amendments, but was not. Now is the time.

 

How to do so is a whole other argument....

[Rosie_0801]

I think we should have all the primary candidates on one ballot and we should be able to vote for 1 in each.

 

Why have primaries at all?

[Guest]

Florida in 2000 isn't the a parallel situation with the example that is being drawn about California. Both elections were close in the popular vote, but 2000 was close in the electoral vote; the electoral vote was clear in this election.

 

There will always be one state or another--or many--that push the electoral count over 270 (or whatever it becomes over time). It's the way it goes, just by the nature of counting. Sometimes that count will be closer than others. That's what happened in Florida.

 

But when you talk about the example given above, California having so many more voters, it gives those in one particular community a lot more power over broader regions with fewer votes, but potentially opposing views/needs. For example, in my youth, there was a big push by the people of Southern Cal (who were facing a terrible water shortage) to commandeer the waters from the Colorado River. The bicameral congress, which recognizes proportions in the house, but equal participation of communities in the senate, gave weight to both parties, and forced people to work it out. Had it been only the representatives, it would have been a complete water grab, forcing farmers and ranchers out of business...and that, with unintended consequences to the water-thirsty vast majority.

 

The electoral college has roughly the same effect. A direct democracy recognizes only the individual; a representative democracy recognizes both the individual and the community of people...and it seems to me that in the long view, that is a good thing.

 

But I am well aware that people disagree with me on this.

 

I'm nearly 60 years old, and a lot calmer about politics I don't like anymore. Been there, done that, heard this argument from each side a lot of times. I've become more thankful over time for the things we have built into the government that provide time for reflection, that slow the process down, that make us less prone to mob rule...to pure majority rule. With a direct democracy, there is less protection for the minority, and in my lifetime, each side has been in a minority more than once. It's a good thing to provide equilibrium.

Yep. I read it discribed as "two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner".

Why would a candidate ever care about less populated areas? Wouldn't they spend their whole time bouncing from coast to coast?

[Amira]

Yep. I read it discribed as "two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner".

Why would a candidate ever care about less populated areas? Wouldn't they spend their whole time bouncing from coast to coast?

 

Since the combined populations of the east and west coasts are around 160 million, a candidate could not win if they only focused on the coasts.  You cannot get 60 million votes out of a population of 160 million people.  

[maize]

Why have primaries at all?

If we had ranked voting I can see how primaries might not be necessary.

[hepatica]

Why would a candidate ever care about less populated areas? Wouldn't they spend their whole time bouncing from coast to coast?

 

It would be an interesting thought experiment to see how many different strategies one could imagine for amassing a majority of the popular vote. I am not immediately sure that a direct national election would have the effect of completely marginalizing interior Americans.

[maize]

It would be an interesting thought experiment to see how many different strategies one could imagine for amassing a majority of the popular vote. I am not immediately sure that a direct national election would have the effect of completely marginalizing interior Americans.

I can't imagine it would be more marginalized than it is now. Campaign efforts under our current system are never focused on more than a few key states.

[wendyroo]

If we had ranked voting I can see how primaries might not be necessary.

 

I think that could be an awesome system.

 

In fact, I would eliminate parties as much as possible from the equation.  Anyone can get on the presidential ballot if they meet the age and citizenship requirements and collect enough signatures...maybe .5% of the US population which is approximately how many an independent would currently have to collect to get on the ballot in all the states.

 

Then voters rank the choices and get a true say in not just which party they want in power, but which candidates' policies and ideologies they most support.

 

I think there would be a real chance we could move beyond a contentious, two-party system.

 

Wendy

[December]

Okay, but WITH the electoral college the president can be elected by only 11 states.  California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina and New Jersey.  55 + 38 + 29 + 29 + 20 + 20 + 18 + 16 + 16 + 15 + 14 = 270  

 

 

 

That's interesting, but in what world could it ever happen that those 11 states would vote one way and the other 39 states would vote differently?  I feel like for this to be a real problem, you would need to have it so a person could be elected only with states in the same region or otherwise share some major similarity. Like for instance, if a candidate could be elected only by southern states or only by midwest states.  Then that creates the potential for other regions of the country to be ignored.  But your 11 states represent the whole country pretty well, you have west coast states, east coast states, midwest states, southern states.  No way could a candidate win those 11 states and not have appeal in any of the bordering states, kwim?

[Caclcoca]

From what I know of the writing of the constitution, it doesn't seem that the authors foresaw the two-party gridlock their system turned into.

 

Does anyone know for sure? Was this something they considered? My impression is that it was more of an accidental than an intended effect of the processes they put in motion.

I am reading early American History with my daughter.  I read something today that implied the arguing between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton while they were a part of George Washington's cabinet led to the creation of "parties."  I do not think that the authors foresaw the two- party gridlock of today.

[ktgrok]

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?

 

Keep in mind that if rural areas have similar interests to each other, all those rural votes add up. So the rural voters in ohio would still get their votes counted instead of them being overwhelmed by the city votes. Same in say, Florida. We have rural and city areas. Our cities go blue, rural go red. If it was popular vote, our red rural voters votes and say, Ohio's, and Kansas's etc would all get counted, and would add up. As it is, in the elections where Florida goes blue (not this one) those rural votes were worthless. Same with Ohio. popular vote would let them count. 

 

Basically, what we have now is rural voters needs only count if you mean states were most people are rural. In the states that have both, those rural votes are already drown out by the city votes. Popular vote would give them back their say. 

[Guest]

Eh, nevermind. Not going there.

Edited November 13, 2016 by Kinsa

[wendyroo]

That's interesting, but in what world could it ever happen that those 11 states would vote one way and the other 39 states would vote differently?  I feel like for this to be a real problem, you would need to have it so a person could be elected only with states in the same region or otherwise share some major similarity. Like for instance, if a candidate could be elected only by southern states or only by midwest states.  Then that creates the potential for other regions of the country to be ignored.  But your 11 states represent the whole country pretty well, you have west coast states, east coast states, midwest states, southern states.  No way could a candidate win those 11 states and not have appeal in any of the bordering states, kwim?

 

What those states all have are large urban populations which are getting larger every year.

 

Michigan (where I live) voted pretty much in a dead heat in this election, but if you look at the election map, it closely resembles the map of the US: lots, and lot and lots of red acreage with a few super concentrated blue dots.  That is what all 11 of those states look like; in some the blue dots were just populous enough to win the vote and in others they were not quite there.

 

Proponents of the electoral college worry that a first past the post method would allow a handful of cities to run up the vote and elect the president.  The electoral college protects against this by largely disenfranchising the citizens of heavily populated states (like the 11 in my list) and giving extra weight to the votes of citizens in less populated states.

 

What I am saying is that even with that level of disenfranchisement, the urban populations of those 11 states are getting large enough that they can nearly win the electoral college all on their own.  And unlike first past the post, winning the electoral college that way could mean only getting the votes of ~25% of voters.

 

I know it seems crazy to think that a candidate could win all of those states, but if you look at the results you can see that even the red states on that list are approaching the tipping point.  Austin and Dallas are only going to get more populous.

 

Wendy

[kiwik]

From the outside your system seems kinda odd and complicated.

[maize]

From the outside your system seems kinda odd and complicated.

It seems that way from the inside too.

 

I'd estimate that at least 90% of Americans don't really understand it.

[December]

 

 

I know it seems crazy to think that a candidate could win all of those states, but if you look at the results you can see that even the red states on that list are approaching the tipping point.  Austin and Dallas are only going to get more populous.

 

Wendy

 

To me the crazy part would be if they ONLY won those states.  For instance, what could happen to demographics that would cause California to vote differently than Oregon and Washington state?  These states also have growing urban centers that outvote the rural areas of the country,  

 

Or look at this way.  If those 11 states vote for one candidate, that means Washington state, Oregon, Alabama and Mississippi would have all voted for the other candidate.  Just how much would the world have to change for that to happen??

Edited November 13, 2016 by December

[Guest]

I think that could be an awesome system.

 

In fact, I would eliminate parties as much as possible from the equation. Anyone can get on the presidential ballot if they meet the age and citizenship requirements and collect enough signatures...maybe .5% of the US population which is approximately how many an independent would currently have to collect to get on the ballot in all the states.

 

Then voters rank the choices and get a true say in not just which party they want in power, but which candidates' policies and ideologies they most support.

 

I think there would be a real chance we could move beyond a contentious, two-party system.

 

Wendy

Plenty of places get this on a municipal level and there are major problems with vote splitting - so you end up with three candidates of a major party running and the one minority candidate wins because they consolidate the vote even as 70% of people vote for the same set of ideals. Primaries are a solution to that problem, and automatic runoffs are used to remedy issues of a minority agreement of candidate suitability.

 

Primaries are *good* part of the process for candidate quality and don't affect third and fourth party entrants, they actually just make it so that each major party has stronger candidates but doesn't preclude green, libertarian, or whatevers from running by any stretch.

[hepatica]

On the flip side, if we are doing extreme analysis, you can theoretically win the electoral college with only 23% of the popular vote if you win by one vote in the 39 less populous states.

 

You can win with 27% of the vote if you win by one vote in the 11 most populous states. 

 

This is based on analysis using 2012 vote totals

 

I think we'd all agree this would be absurd, but at what point does it become too undemocratic? How many elections where the party winning the popular vote loses the election will convince us that this is undemocratic.

 

I also think it is a moral issue. A system created to uphold slavery is now disproportionately disenfranchising people of color. I think that ought to give us pause. 

[wendyroo]

To me the crazy part would be if they ONLY won those states.  For instance, what could happen to demographics that would cause California to vote differently than Oregon and Washington state?  These states also have growing urban centers that outvote the rural areas of the country,  

 

Or look at this way.  If those 11 states vote for one candidate, that means Washington state, Oregon, Alabama and Mississippi would have all voted for the other candidate.  Just how much would the world have to change for that to happen??

 

I kind of assume that candidate would take more states.

 

However, if those in favor of the electoral college truly think we have to worry about 100% of the residents in a handful of cities all banding together and foisting a candidate upon the rest of the country via popular vote, then I simply think it is important to acknowledge that the electoral college would allow the same thing to happen, and technically only a small minority of people would need to vote for the winner.

 

Wendy

[wendyroo]

Plenty of places get this on a municipal level and there are major problems with vote splitting - so you end up with three candidates of a major party running and the one minority candidate wins because they consolidate the vote even as 70% of people vote for the same set of ideals. Primaries are a solution to that problem, and automatic runoffs are used to remedy issues of a minority agreement of candidate suitability.

 

Primaries are *good* part of the process for candidate quality and don't affect third and fourth party entrants, they actually just make it so that each major party has stronger candidates but doesn't preclude green, libertarian, or whatevers from running by any stretch.

 

That is exactly what an alternative vote/ranking system/instant run off election avoids.

 

 

Wendy

[happypamama]

Keep in mind that if rural areas have similar interests to each other, all those rural votes add up. So the rural voters in ohio would still get their votes counted instead of them being overwhelmed by the city votes. Same in say, Florida. We have rural and city areas. Our cities go blue, rural go red. If it was popular vote, our red rural voters votes and say, Ohio's, and Kansas's etc would all get counted, and would add up. As it is, in the elections where Florida goes blue (not this one) those rural votes were worthless. Same with Ohio. popular vote would let them count.

 

Basically, what we have now is rural voters needs only count if you mean states were most people are rural. In the states that have both, those rural votes are already drown out by the city votes. Popular vote would give them back their say.

I think that's how PA went red this time. The voters in the little tiny rural townships showed up and together beat out the cities. I have my own speculations as to why that is (and I do think a large part of it was gun rights -- lots of hunters in those rural little townships who were very concerned about Clinton and gun control, but I expect there is more to it than that), and I did read that there were several Philadelphia Democrats who didn't show up, but regardless of side, it was fascinating to see how each vote really mattered (only a 70K margin out of 6 million voters). I know our lines in our county were reported to be longer than usual, and Google says that PA did indeed have more voters this year. I think they all really just underestimated the power of the rural areas.

 

I would like to see more of something like what ME and NE have, where they split the electoral votes. I understand the point of the EC, but it doesn't really seem to fit our needs right now. Right now, some states get more attention than others, but I think it's also encouraging voter apathy. A straight popular vote would encourage campaigning in a slightly different set of states, but it would give each vote the same weight. The reds in MD and the blues in TX might actually care more about coming out if they aren't now. My DH is recovering from a very serious injury, but I got him out to vote Tuesday because I knew it would be close here. Had we still lived in MD, where our votes didn't make a difference, regardless of side, we might not have bothered. How many other people felt that their state was overwhelmingly one way or the other and so they didn't bother? A straight popular vote might help with that, or even a split electoral college thing. Maybe all those reds in MD or blues in TX would have enough to get an EC vote or two.

[maize]

I think that's how PA went red this time. The voters in the little tiny rural townships showed up and together beat out the cities. I have my own speculations as to why that is (and I do think a large part of it was gun rights -- lots of hunters in those rural little townships who were very concerned about Clinton and gun control, but I expect there is more to it than that), and I did read that there were several Philadelphia Democrats who didn't show up, but regardless of side, it was fascinating to see how each vote really mattered (only a 70K margin out of 6 million voters). I know our lines in our county were reported to be longer than usual, and Google says that PA did indeed have more voters this year. I think they all really just underestimated the power of the rural areas.

 

 

 

It's really not just the rural areas. 

 

I did some nunber crunching. There are 67 counties in Pennsylvania. In the five counties with the highest population numbers, Clinton got the majority--but not, by a long shot, all of the votes. In fact, those five counties account for a full 27% of Trump's overall votes in the state. The top twelve most populous counties account for 53% of the Trump vote--leaving the remaining 55 counties to provide only 47% of Trump's support in the state. Yes, it is true that Trump couldn't have won without the rural votes--but he also couldn't have won without a not insignificant percentage of the urban and suburban vote.

 

In fact, it took fourteen of the least populous counties to add up to 105,385 votes for Trump--not quite equal to Philadelphia's contribution of 105,785 votes. And most of those counties contributed a higher percentage of their votes to Clinton than Philadelphia did to Trump.

Edited November 14, 2016 by maize

[Slartibartfast]

I am reading early American History with my daughter. I read something today that implied the arguing between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton while they were a part of George Washington's cabinet led to the creation of "parties." I do not think that the authors foresaw the two- party gridlock of today.

But then then it was North vs South. They were swapping, and trading, doing backroom deals from the beginning.

 

There has always been some sort of contention.

[Slartibartfast]

Why have primaries at all?

They are not bound to have primaries by the Constitution, those are rules set forth by the political parties.

[KarenNC]

From what I know of the writing of the constitution, it doesn't seem that the authors foresaw the two-party gridlock their system turned into.

 

Does anyone know for sure? Was this something they considered? My impression is that it was more of an accidental than an intended effect of the processes they put in motion.

 

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

Washington's farewell address included a warning against political parties. Here's the relevant part:

 

"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."

[Guest]

Since the combined populations of the east and west coasts are around 160 million, a candidate could not win if they only focused on the coasts. You cannot get 60 million votes out of a population of 160 million people.

Your assumption is that no one in the middle votes. They do.

[Amira]

Your assumption is that no one in the middle votes. They do.

Of course they do, but there are still not enough votes on the coasts to make it possible to ignore the entire middle of the country. Texas? Illinois? Michigan? Ohio? There are lots of people in those states with diverse backgrounds and a candidate would be a fool to ignore those and many other places.

 

Like I said way above, you need to appeal to at least 250 million people to get enough votes. That's 3/4 of the country.

[Guest]

Of course they do, but there are still not enough votes on the coasts to make it possible to ignore the entire middle of the country. Texas? Illinois? Michigan? Ohio? There are lots of people in those states with diverse backgrounds and a candidate would be a fool to ignore those and many other places.

 

Like I said way above, you need to appeal to at least 250 million people to get enough votes. That's 3/4 of the country.

There are if you go direct democracy. The California stat sted above is clear enough in this. In addition, the common understanding is that if you win the four corners of the US, you win. The feedback on the recent election is that both sides knee it was going to beba long night when Florida was decided in a different direction from New England.

[Amira]

There are if you go direct democracy. The California stat sted above is clear enough in this. In addition, the common understanding is that if you win the four corners of the US, you win. The feedback on the recent election is that both sides knee it was going to beba long night when Florida was decided in a different direction from New England.

The only way you can win with just the four corners is if we have the EC. A direct popular vote would eliminate that.

Edited November 14, 2016 by Amira

[Guest]

The only way you can with with just the four corners is if we have the EC. A direct popular vote would eliminate that.

We shall have to defer our opinions to someone who has done the math. Someone we both agree can do math. :0)

[maize]

The only way you can with with just the four corners is if we have the EC. A direct popular vote would eliminate that.

Right.

 

The biggest difference really is that in a direct popular vote winning the majority in a state wouldn't mean winning all the voting power of that state. Not everyone in Florida voted for Trump--but because Florida gives all its electoral college votes to whoever wins the most votes overall in the state, all the votes that Floridians cast for Clinton never made it to a national tally.

[Tanaqui]

The argument "We don't want elections decided by just a few states" is so weird to me. What if we had decided to use some other metric to divide the population? Can you imagine?

 

"Well, there are a lot more whites than blacks/Hispanics/Native Americans/Asians, and we don't want only one racial group to decide elections, so we're going to give minorities the same number of electors as whites, even though they have a smaller population."

 

"There's a lot of truckers in the US and not so many artists, and we don't want only one occupation's opinions on the government to matter, so we're going to use a proportional system to ensure that truckers' interests aren't disproportionately represented."

 

"Old people are more likely to vote than young people, so let's divide the population by age and the majority from each generation gets a carefully balanced number of votes."

 

"We happen to think that farmers are better people than 'cityfolk', so we're going to carefully divide up congressional districts in such a way that people in cities have less of an impact than people in rural areas, even though the US is a heavily urbanized nation and 80% of the population lives in a city or suburb."

 

It starts to look a little silly, doesn't it?

[Deb in NZ]

Yes, I would like to see election reform.  Government should evolve over time, just as other human institutions do.  The electoral college was designed to avoid certain issues (which have already been mentioned in this thread, so I won't rehash), however, it is not longer succeeding.  I would like to see a reformed electoral college, perhaps one where none of the states are "winner take all." 

 

I would add, though, that what I would really like to see reformed is the primaries.  As a voter, I don't even pay attention until after the primaries because I know that I will get NO SAY in who I get to vote for in November. 

 

 

I'd like to see all primaries to be open primaries as they are publicly funded.  If the primaries were all on one day (May 1) with campaigning allowed only 2 months prior (say March-April) to voting it would help to prevent people who by the time November comes are just completely sick of the election.  Take the candidate of each party who received the most votes overall to run in the main election.  This would allow for 6 months of campaigning for the selected candidates.  By holding open elections the parties could more clearly see how much support the candidates had from the whole electorate, not just the small number of registered party members.  Holding the primaries on one day would allow for all states to have the same amount of info when making their choice.  In this year's election states that had early primaries weren't as fully aware of who some of the candidates were & it definitely favoured candidates with prior name recognition.  

 

I believe that much of the stress over this year's results can be traced back to the primaries of both major parties.

 

 

 

JMHO,

[Ausmumof3]

The argument "We don't want elections decided by just a few states" is so weird to me. What if we had decided to use some other metric to divide the population? Can you imagine?

 

"Well, there are a lot more whites than blacks/Hispanics/Native Americans/Asians, and we don't want only one racial group to decide elections, so we're going to give minorities the same number of electors as whites, even though they have a smaller population."

 

"There's a lot of truckers in the US and not so many artists, and we don't want only one occupation's opinions on the government to matter, so we're going to use a proportional system to ensure that truckers' interests aren't disproportionately represented."

 

"Old people are more likely to vote than young people, so let's divide the population by age and the majority from each generation gets a carefully balanced number of votes."

 

"We happen to think that farmers are better people than 'cityfolk', so we're going to carefully divide up congressional districts in such a way that people in cities have less of an impact than people in rural areas, even though the US is a heavily urbanized nation and 80% of the population lives in a city or suburb."

 

It starts to look a little silly, doesn't it?

It kinda makes more sense when you realise that initially 1 in 20 people were urban dwellers and now it's 4 in 5.

[poppy]

Founding Fathers set up this system and rigged the system so that slaves counted as '3/5 of a person' . So that each southern white vote would count as 1+3/5. There is no nobility here. I think dissolving it should be on the table.

Edited November 14, 2016 by poppy

[Slartibartfast]

 

 

"We happen to think that farmers are better people than 'cityfolk', so we're going to carefully divide up congressional districts in such a way that people in cities have less of an impact than people in rural areas, even though the US is a heavily urbanized nation and 80% of the population lives in a city or suburb."

 

 

The electoral college is divided up that way.

 

Which....is probably what you are saying. :lol:

Edited November 15, 2016 by Slartibartfast

[MFG]

Should the US Senate also be substantially changed? It also favors smaller population states.

[maize]

Should the US Senate also be substantially changed? It also favors smaller population states.

I actually think our bicameral legislature setup does a decent job of balancing state representation (in the senate) and popular representation (in the house). Because our nation remains a federation of semi-autonomous states (in spite of increasing federalization) I believe it is appropriate for the legislative branch to reflect that.

 

The presidency, however, I believe can best serve the nation as a whole if elections to that post are more broadly democratic.

Edited November 15, 2016 by maize

[Slartibartfast]

I agree with 2 Senators per state, the House is more powerful and it does have representation depending on population.

[Slartibartfast]

dbl

Edited November 15, 2016 by Slartibartfast

[poppy]

Shared with permission via https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10210784847114642&set=a.1522197932274.2067889.1154363813&type=3&theater

[Amira]

Shared with permission via https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10210784847114642&set=a.1522197932274.2067889.1154363813&type=3&theater

Well, those Wyominites are pretty amazing. And they have most of Yellowstone which makes them doubly cool. Edited November 17, 2016 by Amira

[Paige]

I think the electoral college was intended to prevent tyranny of the majority but in effect it has simply created tyranny of groups of majorities. We didn't want the big population states ordering the smaller ones around, so now we have the big population within the state ordering the smaller populations of the same state. Is it better? I think the rural citizens of Montana have a lot in common with the rural citizens of California, and the liberal elites of Kentucky have a lot in common with those of New York. I lean towards thinking abolishing the electoral college makes more sense now with a mobile population with access to media of all types and easy communication with each other.

 

On the other hand, eliminating the electoral college eliminates the safeguard that the founders intended to prevent demagogues. Laws preventing faithless electors are in direct violation of the intent of the constitution. Defying the will of the state's population is their right and duty if they feel the need. Perhaps we went wrong in focusing on "electing presidents" instead of focusing on electing responsible electors state by state. We have electors now who are in their position not because they are people of integrity, but because they earned a political gift for doing who knows what. Nobody trusts that a faithless elector acts out of pure conscience and not some kind of outside pressure. 

 

If we went to a pure popular vote, we would have no safeguard, but I feel like the safeguard today is more of a fantasy anyway, and with a better educated population, perhaps not as necessary as it was in the late 1700s. 

 

 

Why have primaries at all?

 

For show.