People calling for and end to the Electoral College

[Farrar]

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?

 

But you can argue that the needs of rural America keep overshadowing the needs of the cities as a result. That's not fair either. There needs to be a balance.

 

The framers of our nation mostly did not foresee a federal government that would be involved in things like education, health care, environmental regulation, etc. They barely foresaw that individual states would. Yet a modern nation needs some level of regulation of those things. We need some level of federal involvement in a huge variety of things that are more involved in our daily lives. The framers didn't think the federal government would be doing this stuff. ETA: My point (which I think I left out) is that the federal government affects individual lives much more, yet we don't choose it that way. Many of us feel it's not fair.

 

We've radically changed how elections work in this country before - most notably when we started actually directly electing our senators.

Edited November 11, 2016 by Farrar

[6packofun]

But you can argue that the needs of rural America keep overshadowing the needs of the cities as a result. That's not fair either. 

 

 

 

What are some examples of how rural America keeps having its needs met?  

 

I tend to look at the Electoral College as a system of state popular votes. If a state decides that one candidate would more suit its needs, it seems as if that should count in some specific way. I'm not saying the Electoral College is the perfect format.  I understand that we have state and local governments, but there are definitely issues nationwide that affect individual states differently and some aren't willing to ignore those differences. (I'm curious about any analogies to state redistricting. It's too complicated for me.  lol)  We are a nation of states as well as individuals and it's difficult to balance that, I guess.  

[Lanny]

Makes me realize what a crappy job we do teaching civics and history in this country.

 

+1     Did those people attend schools that did not require them to pass a course in U.S. Government, or are they High School dropouts?   I took that course in the 11th or 12th grade. I do not remember the name of the teacher, but he did a great job and he made it a very interesting subject for me.   

[Amira]

What are some examples of how rural America keeps having its needs met?

 

I tend to look at the Electoral College as a system of state popular votes. If a state decides that one candidate would more suit its needs, it seems as if that should count in some specific way. I'm not saying the Electoral College is the perfect format. I understand that we have state and local governments, but there are definitely issues nationwide that affect individual states differently and some aren't willing to ignore those differences. (I'm curious about any analogies to state redistricting. It's too complicated for me. lol) We are a nation of states as well as individuals and it's difficult to balance that, I guess.

I grew up in one of those less populated states and am at heart still a girl from the mountains of the western US. I care about that big empty middle of the US because that's where my roots have been since the mid-1800s.

 

But it is simple math that the vote of a person in Wyoming or any other less populated state has more power in the EC than someone in a more populated state and my western US sense of fairness doesn't let me overlook that. Like I said above, I've voted for president in a lot of states and it doesn't make sense to me that my vote counted for more in small-town Idaho than in the middle of Seattle.

 

The Senate is one important solution to rural America feeling overlooked because it's such a powerful body in a lot of ways. Utah gets 2 senators for its population of 3 million people. California gets two senators for its population of 40 million people. Rural America has a lot of represention in the Senate for its population and an appropriate amount for its landmass. Those tiny eastern states skew that a bit, but the big empty middle has lots of senators. We don't need the EC to make us relevant. We already are in the Senate.

Edited November 12, 2016 by Amira

[momacacia]

I think we probably don't do a great job teaching the why of things; in any subject. If we did, and it was retained (big if), we could at least have more intelligent conversations about it (in.the general public...sufficiently intelligent here. ;))

[Tanaqui]

LOL, I just saw this:

 

Mathematical Alternatives to the Electoral College

[ChocolateReignRemix]

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

 

I didn't insinuate anything.  My post:

"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?"

 

I directly asked why she thinks a rural vote should have more value than an urban vote, and as been shown to you repeatedly, under the EC the votes do not have equal value.

[The Governess]

Maybe ideally there should be two parts: a) each state gets one elector in the electoral college, based on the majority vote for the state, and each candidate is assigned a percentage of those votes based on how many states they win.... but we also b) assign a percentage of the overall popular vote to each candidate. Then we take a straight average of these two percentages to determine the winner.

 

This would ensure that every state matters, and every individual vote matters too. And would make our voting process similar to congress in terms of balance between states vs. population.

[Amira]

Here's more math to go along with what I posted before and candidates not just focusing on a few big cities.

 

18 million votes out of 70 million people is about 25%. To get 60-65 million votes, you need to appeal to areas of the country with a total population of at least 240-260 million people, about 3/4 of the country assuming you're still getting 60% of the vote in all of those areas which is not likely.

 

So no, I don't think the argument that candidates would only focus on a small number of large cities is in any way persuasive.  Urban areas in the US include towns with as little as 2500 people in them and 80% of the US is urban. 

[Guest]

We have an electoral college for the same reason we have a bicameral legislature, and because of a concept that shifted at the time of the Civil War Whatever You Want to Call It.

 

Bicameral because every state counts, every region is equally represented in the Senate and population-proportionally represented in the House. If we get rid of the electoral college, no one on either side/any side will give a rip about the people outside California, Ohio, Florida, Texas and New York. It will be the people in those states that will elect the president and none of the rest will matter.

 

The other reason is that we are a democratic republic made of independent states. We are not a direct democracy. We vote for people to represent our interests. It's not s popular vote, but the vote of a State, which causes greater attention to be paid to ALL the states. It also means that we have greater opportunity to impact the vote because it is much easier to make one's voice heard on a local level, by local action, than it is on a national level.

 

The most effective way to make your voice heard at a national level is to make it heard at the state level, where if you can persuade others around you who share more in common interest, and impact the opinions in your state, your voice will be heard nationally.

[Amira]

We have an electoral college for the same reason we have a bicameral legislature, and because of a concept that shifted at the time of the Civil War Whatever You Want to Call It.

 

Bicameral because every state counts, every region is equally represented in the Senate and population-proportionally represented in the House. If we get rid of the electoral college, no one on either side/any side will give a rip about the people outside California, Ohio, Florida, Texas and New York. It will be the people in those states that will elect the president and none of the rest will matter.

 

The other reason is that we are a democratic republic made of independent states. We are not a direct democracy. We vote for people to represent our interests. It's not s popular vote, but the vote of a State, which causes greater attention to be paid to ALL the states. It also means that we have greater opportunity to impact the vote because it is much easier to make one's voice heard on a local level, by local action, than it is on a national level.

 

The most effective way to make your voice heard at a national level is to make it heard at the state level, where if you can persuade others around you who share more in common interest, and impact the opinions in your state, your voice will be heard nationally.

 

The combined populations of those 5 states is 120 million people.  If 70 percent of those people can vote and if 60 percent of the voters turn out, that leaves you with 50 million actual voters. Since a candidate needs at least 60 million votes to win and she or he would most assuredly not win even close to all 50 million of those votes, it would be mathematically impossible for those five states to pick the president on their own.  Even getting 60 percent of those 50 million votes is highly unlikely.  All of those states have rural and urban areas that vote very differently from each other.

 

Without the EC, every vote would count the same whether you live in Wyoming with no neighbors for miles or if you live in Los Angeles.  Some voters still wouldn't be appealed to, just like they aren't now if they live in a reliably red or blue state, but the numbers show that the election couldn't be dominated by just a few states or urban areas. 

[Tanaqui]

It's not s popular vote, but the vote of a State, which causes greater attention to be paid to ALL the states.

 

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.

 

[Amira]

And even more math, because the numbers never lie.

 

In this election, 5.6 million people voted for the winner in California.  This is by far the most populous state and those 5.5 million votes were 62% of the total.  Those 5.6 million people were 14% of the total population of the state.

 

In Texas, 4.7 million people voted for the winner and took 52% of the vote.  Those 4.7 million people were about 17% of the total population.

 

In Ohio, 2.8 people voted for the winner and took 52% of the vote.  Those 2.8 million people were about 25% of the total population.

 

In Florida, 4.6 million people voted for the winner and took 49% of the vote.  Those 4.6 million people were about 23% of the total population.

 

In New York, 4.1 million people voted for the winner and took 59% of the vote.  Those 4.1 million people were about 21% of the population.

 

One candidate took the majority in two states, the other in three.  Neither was even close in these five states to the number they would have needed to win the popular vote.  And without the EC, they'd focus on individual voters, not states anyway.

 

Edited November 12, 2016 by Amira

[maize]

LOL, I just saw this:

 

Mathematical Alternatives to the Electoral College

That was awesome!

 

And I noted that it was posted before the election, so not inspired by a sour grapes attitude :)

 

I like the coin toss option.

[maize]

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.

This might be an argument in its favor--if candidates actually had to pay attention to voters all over the country campaign spending might balloon dramatically past even it's current preposterous rates :tongue_smilie:

[Tanaqui]

Maybe we could find a way to legally restrict how long the election season can last....

[maize]

Maybe we could find a way to legally restrict how long the election season can last....

Randomly called elections so the candidates don't know it's coming until 2 months beforehand?

 

Too far out of line with our current system to actually happen, but similar to what some countries do :)

[maize]

More realistically, we could establish a national primaries day two months or so before the general election.

[maize]

I really do want to get rid of the two party system; I think that more parties involved in government would necessitate more cross-party cooperation and lead to less overall political polarization in the country. Our current system is incredibly divisive.

[RegGuheert]

And even more math, because the numbers never lie.

 

Nonsense.  In fact, there is a famous book written on the topic of lying with numbers.

 

In this case, the idea that you can analyze the poplular vote from an vote within the electoral college system to prove that the system is flawed is a non sequitur argument.  Why? There are several reasons, some of which have already been discussed:

 

- Voters in our country are a self-selecting group.  Simply put, a different set of voters would have selected themselves to vote had a different system been in place.

- Many votes (such as absentee ballots) are simply not counted in the current system when they would not be able to influence the outcome.

- Voting systems used for a unified national vote would not be the same as those currently in place, which would result in a different result.

 

I find that calls for a national popular voting system for president do not acknowledge the ever-present role of voting fraud and bias which are prevalent in ALL voting systems.  Currently we have a somewhat-bizarre patchwork of approaches to voting throughout the country, all with their own set of benefits and drawbacks.  We should all be thankful for the fact that these many approaches are chosen on a state and local level, with different individuals and organizations influencing the approach chosen in different places.  All of them have biases, but different locations have different biases.

 

Contrast that with the replacement of that approach with a centralized voting system.  It would still be biased, but that bias would be uniform across the entire country and would be controlled by the ruling party.  The obvious result would be that our current two-party system would quickly devolve into a one-party system.  While I realize that there are people in this country who would like a one-party system, I will stand up to be counted as one who is against it.

[Amira]

Nonsense. In fact, there is a famous book written on the topic of lying with numbers.

 

In this case, the idea that you can analyze the poplular vote from an vote within the electoral college system to prove that the system is flawed is a non sequitur argument. Why? There are several reasons, some of which have already been discussed:

 

- Voters in our country are a self-selecting group. Simply put, a different set of voters would have selected themselves to vote had a different system been in place.

- Many votes (such as absentee ballots) are simply not counted in the current system when they would not be able to influence the outcome.

- Voting systems used for a unified national vote would not be the same as those currently in place, which would result in a different result.

 

I find that calls for a national popular voting system for president do not acknowledge the ever-present role of voting fraud and bias which are prevalent in ALL voting systems. Currently we have a somewhat-bizarre patchwork of approaches to voting throughout the country, all with their own set of benefits and drawbacks. We should all be thankful for the fact that these many approaches are chosen on a state and local level, with different individuals and organizations influencing the approach chosen in different places. All of them have biases, but different locations have different biases.

 

Contrast that with the replacement of that approach with a centralized voting system. It would still be biased, but that bias would be uniform across the entire country and would be controlled by the ruling party. The obvious result would be that our current two-party system would quickly devolve into a one-party system. While I realize that there are people in this country who would like a one-party system, I will stand up to be counted as one who is against it.

I don't see what most of your post has to do with the numbers I posted. I agree that dropping the EC could change turnout in ways we can't predict, but I don't think it would be so radically different that everyone in NYC suddenly registers and then votes for the same person, or anything close to that. There aren't enough absentee ballots to change the numbers that dramatically. Looking at past turnout and voting habits is our best tool for predicting future voting patterns, even if we were to end the EC. You'd still need to campaign in a large chunk of the country to get enough people to vote for you.

 

I haven't said anywhere that I want a centralized voting system. Dropping the EC wouldn't require that so we'd still have our crazy patchwork of voting systems throughout the country.

 

Even if there were concrete evidence of voter fraud, I don't see what that has to do with the statistics.

[Matryoshka]

I really do want to get rid of the two party system; I think that more parties involved in government would necessitate more cross-party cooperation and lead to less overall political polarization in the country. Our current system is incredibly divisive.

 

I really wish we had a parliamentary system with a prime minister like most of the rest of the free world.  That makes for multiple parties, often makes it so that two parties have to work together to form a majority coalition, and also makes it so that the prime minister and the party in charge of the legislature are the same, so that you don't have all this gridlock and things can actually get done.  And if you don't like what's being done, you can have a vote of no confidence and have new elections at any time - no need for costly, lengthy impeachments for real or spurious reasons.

 

But good luck getting that kind of reform.  Most people can't figure out how our system works, no less why or how other democracies do it differently, our way is always best, and it would require not just amending but rewriting our constitution, and yeah... that's not going to happen.  

[Bics]

Truth: I lost my well-written post while trying to pull a quote.  That just knocked the stuffing out of me on a Saturday morning:(

 

This video really helped me understand some of nuances of EC.  

 

First, we weren't voting for Trump, Clinton, or a smaller name.  There were 51 popular elections that day--not one.  Those 51 elections were for each state (and DC) to choose a slate of electors.  Why? See the Hamilton quotation someone pasted in a few pages ago.  Those of you who have brought up valid concerns about the electors not voting the way they are supposed to in December--you have made me question why I don't even know the names of those electors.  Honestly, according to the Hamilton quotation above, I am supposed to be voting for representatives who are going to reason well.  Maybe they should be under more scrutiny?

 

Some of you want to do away with EC because "votes aren't equal." I propose you are looking at the US as a direct democracy.  I know you "know" we aren't one.  I know you "know" we are called a representative democracy.  I think logically, however, you are assuming things that are true of a direct democracy.  Let me explain:  

 

Someone questioned why an Iowa farmer's vote weighs more than a NYC cab driver's.  The answer is: technically that is an invalid question.  They aren't meant to be compared.  The cab driver's vote counts as much the governor's--in New York.  That is democracy.  The farmer's vote counts as much as the governor's--in Iowa.  That is democracy.  But to lure Iowa into the republic and protect Iowa from being overpowered by New York, in the federal system, they have to be closer to equal.  Hence, the Senate.  Equal representation.

 

There is validity to the argument that in the government  more populous areas should have more weight.  Hence, the House of Representatives.  

 

And the compromise is that a bill has to pass both Houses before it becomes law. 

 

The EC is kind of like the bill having to pass through both Houses.  A few posters made half an argument that because we have the Senate, the rural states are equally represented in Congress--and somehow they reached the conclusion that in the presidential election there didn't need to be a safeguard for those same states.  Huh?

Was the rest of your argument that you want to disband the House of Representatives, thereby giving rural people the power in the Legislative Branch while handing over the Executive Branch to the urban populations?  Of course not--the EC is the compromise reached in the Executive Branch.

 

And those of you that insist the Founding Fathers didn't foresee things as they are so we should just chuck their restrictions, I just want to humbly point out:

 

I am a product of  Progressive education.  Presumably, we are drawn to this forum with the intention of acquiring a classical education, for ourselves and our children.  That is us acknowledging that a classical education was for free men.  Progressive education has been all about  producing a population that can be led easily.  The Founding Fathers were classically educated. They disagreed vehemently over all this, reasoned well, and came up with a solution.  I am all for discussing--I love it!--but I feel humbleness.  I think it the height of hubris to expound my opinions on such matters as "the way things should be."  I would have to read every bit of the debates of the early republic before I thought I had a real handle on the issue.  Don't you?

 

To the question of why European republics don't need the EC, my off-the-cuff response would be: size.  I had the privilege of studying Economic Education in Latvia about ten years ago, and it was a surprise to me how well the Nationalized education seemed to work there--but all those countries are the size of our states, roughly speaking.  So what works in a smaller region, won't necessarily transfer to a larger.  Can you imagine Europe (all languages being same) having one popular election? I agree that this is not a great argument--communication is faster now, people are more transient, and we see ourselves as a nation first, statehood second, if at all.  Many of us have no state loyalty at all--but the regional differences still apply, even if only from an economic and infrastructure standpoint.  (I don't concede these are the only differences, however.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 12, 2016 by Whippoorwill

[maize]

Truth: I lost my well-written post while trying to pull a quote. That just knocked the stuffing out of me on a Saturday morning:(

 

This video really helped me understand some of nuances of EC.

 

First, we weren't voting for Trump, Clinton, or a smaller name. There were 51 popular elections that day--not one. Those 51 elections were for each state (and DC) to choose a slate of electors. Why? See the Hamilton quotation someone pasted in a few pages ago. Those of you who have brought up valid concerns about the electors not voting the way they are supposed to in December--you have made me question why I don't even know the names of those electors. Honestly, according to the Hamilton quotation above, I am supposed to be voting for representatives who are going to reason well. Maybe they should be under more scrutiny?

 

Some of you want to do away with EC because "votes aren't equal." I propose you are looking at the US as a direct democracy. I know you "know" we aren't one. I know you "know" we are called a representative democracy. I think logically, however, you are assuming things that are true of a direct democracy. Let me explain:

 

Someone questioned why an Iowa farmer's vote weighs more than a NYC cab driver's. The answer is: technically that is an invalid question. They aren't meant to be compared. The cab driver's vote counts as much the governor's--in New York. That is democracy. The farmer's vote counts as much as the governor's--in Iowa. That is democracy. But to lure Iowa into the republic and protect Iowa from being overpowered by New York, in the federal system, they have to be closer to equal. Hence, the Senate. Equal representation.

 

There is validity to the argument that in the government more populous areas should have more weight. Hence, the House of Representatives.

 

And the compromise is that a bill has to pass both Houses before it becomes law.

 

The EC is kind of like the bill having to pass through both Houses. A few posters made half an argument that because we have the Senate, the rural states are equally represented in Congress--and somehow they reached the conclusion that in the presidential election there didn't need to be a safeguard for those same states. Huh?

Was the rest of your argument that you want to disband the House of Representatives, thereby giving rural people the power in the Legislative Branch while handing over the Executive Branch to the urban populations? Of course not--the EC is the compromise reached in the Executive Branch.

 

And those of you that insist the Founding Fathers didn't foresee things as they are so we should just chuck their restrictions, I just want to humbly point out:

 

I am a product of Progressive education. Presumably, we are drawn to this forum with the intention of acquiring a classical education, for ourselves and our children. That is us acknowledging that a classical education was for free men. Progressive education has been all about producing a population that can be led easily. The Founding Fathers were classically educated. They disagreed vehemently over all this, reasoned well, and came up with a solution. I am all for discussing--I love it!--but I feel humbleness. I think it the height of hubris to expound my opinions on such matters as "the way things should be." I would have to read every bit of the debates of the early republic before I thought I had a real handle on the issue. Don't you?

 

To the question of why European republics don't need the EC, my off-the-cuff response would be: size. I had the privilege of studying Economic Education in Latvia about ten years ago, and it was a surprise to me how well the Nationalized education seemed to work there--but all those countries are the size of our states, roughly speaking. So what works in a smaller region, won't necessarily transfer to a larger. Can you imagine Europe (all languages being same) having one popular election? I agree that this is not a great argument--communication is faster now, people are more transient, and we see ourselves as a nation first, statehood second, if at all. Many of us have no state loyalty at all--but the regional differences still apply, even if only from an economic and infrastructure standpoint. (I don't concede these are the only differences, however.)

1) the electoral college does not work as originally intended (with electors carefully and thoughtfully choosing who to cast their votes for)

 

2) the original thirteen states had an area of approximately 360,000 sq mi, less than that of many modern republics.

 

We have no reason at all to think that A) the Founding fathers would approve of our electoral system as it currently plays out.

 

Or B) the Founding fathers had more insight than modern political scientists with vastly greater historical perspective and data to draw on.

 

It is probable that I personally do not have the ability to come up with a significantly superior electoral process, but I am confident that our nation has the resources to do so.

 

And I believe that having the resources and ability to improve upon the current system gives us an obligation to do just that.

[maize]

May I say something about our constitution?

 

I believe that the framers of the constitution did a fabulous job with the resources and limitations they had. They were designing a form of government significantly different from any other at the time. They had to compromise to get buy in from the diverse states that government was to serve. They were careful, thoughtful thinkers who crafted a document that has served us well and can continue to serve us well.

Edited November 12, 2016 by maize

[maize]

Ugh, posted accidentally before finishing my last post. I'm going to continue here.

 

I see an analogy to the Wright brothers and their airplane. Those first planes they built were something new, a huge step forward into powered heavier than air flight. They were brilliant and hardworking men who did incredible things with the resources and limitations at hand.

 

But what if no one had ever improved on their design aside from occasional minor modifications? What if people said it was OK to modify the wings but never the engine because what the Wright brothers had built must be the most perfect aircraft design possible?

 

We would never have achieved our modern success with flight, we would be stuck with clunky, extremely limited aircraft that could never get us from New York to Paris.

 

I think our constitution is the same. We don't need to throw it out, but we do need to keep improving on it.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

 

Some of you want to do away with EC because "votes aren't equal." I propose you are looking at the US as a direct democracy.  I know you "know" we aren't one.  I know you "know" we are called a representative democracy.  I think logically, however, you are assuming things that are true of a direct democracy.  Let me explain: 

 

False.  Being a republic does not mean that votes should not be equal.

 

Republic

a (1) :  a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) :  a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) :  a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) :  a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c :  a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>

Edited November 12, 2016 by ChocolateReignRemix

[Amira]

My concern about the video posted above is that it presents arguments for the Electoral College that the framers of the Constitution didn't make themselves. The framers were not concerned about votes being "stolen," nor is there evidence that voter fraud happens except in tiny percentages anyway. Campaigning without the EC would change, but based on the numbers I posted above, those changes would probably be for the better.

 

The US would still be a republic even without the EC because we still would have representatives in Congress making our laws. We would simply be a more democratic republic, and that's a good thing. We are a very different country than we were in 1787 and the framers intended that our laws evolve to deal with those changes.

[wendyroo]

My concern about the video posted above is that it presents arguments for the Electoral College that the framers of the Constitution didn't make themselves. The framers were not concerned about votes being "stolen," nor is there evidence that voter fraud happens except in tiny percentages anyway. Campaigning without the EC would change, but based on the numbers I posted above, those changes would probably be for the better.

 

I love that in the video it gives two reasons for why the EC protects against voter fraud.

1 - In any given election the vast majority of votes in most states don't matter at all - so nobody would bother to tamper with them.

 

and

 

2 - It is much too difficult to predict which states you should tamper with, because nobody can guess ahead of time which states will be swing states.   :confused1:  Except, you know, the candidates and the pundits and the media and ...

 

Wendy

[cintinative]

Can someone provide links for educational resources for the Electoral College as it relates to civics and history?

 

I thought this video was really helpful.  https://www.prageru.com/courses/political-science/do-you-understand-electoral-college

 

ETA: oops. Just saw it upthread!

Edited November 12, 2016 by cintinative

[Serenade]

According to CNN, Trump received 60,265,858 of the popular vote, and Clinton received 60,839,922. If you subtract California's numbers from those totals, Trump ends up 57,114,037 total (60,265,858 - 3,151,821) and Clinton ends up with 54,979,208 (60,839,922 - 5,860,714). Without California in the mix, Trump easily wins the popular vote of the rest of the nation. And IMO, that is why we still need the Electoral College. No single state should have that much power over the other 49.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

According to CNN, Trump received 60,265,858 of the popular vote, and Clinton received 60,839,922. If you subtract California's numbers from those totals, Trump ends up 57,114,037 total (60,265,858 - 3,151,821) and Clinton ends up with 54,979,208 (60,839,922 - 5,860,714). Without California in the mix, Trump easily wins the popular vote of the rest of the nation. And IMO, that is why we still need the Electoral College. No single state should have that much power over the other 49.

 

And they wouldn't considering the other 54,979,208 people would need to agree with them. 

 

I also take issue with this nonsense about states having power.  Getting rid of the electoral vote gives every citizen's vote the same weight.

[Amira]

According to CNN, Trump received 60,265,858 of the popular vote, and Clinton received 60,839,922. If you subtract California's numbers from those totals, Trump ends up 57,114,037 total (60,265,858 - 3,151,821) and Clinton ends up with 54,979,208 (60,839,922 - 5,860,714). Without California in the mix, Trump easily wins the popular vote of the rest of the nation. And IMO, that is why we still need the Electoral College. No single state should have that much power over the other 49.

Florida in 2000?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Florida in 2000?

 

I find it amusing that people supporting the EC have no issue with a 600 vote margin in a single state determining an election, but are concerned that a 2,000,000 vote margin in one state in the popular vote could do so.

[Amira]

I find it amusing that people supporting the EC have no issue with a 600 vote margin in a single state determining an election, but are concerned that a 2,000,000 vote margin in one state in the popular vote could do so.

And that if we dropped the EC, we wouldn't be voting as states. California wouldn't be deciding the election, 60 million individuals would be in all the states.

[wendyroo]

Truth: I lost my well-written post while trying to pull a quote.  That just knocked the stuffing out of me on a Saturday morning:(

 

This video really helped me understand some of nuances of EC.  

 

First, we weren't voting for Trump, Clinton, or a smaller name.  There were 51 popular elections that day--not one.  Those 51 elections were for each state (and DC) to choose a slate of electors.  Why? See the Hamilton quotation someone pasted in a few pages ago.  Those of you who have brought up valid concerns about the electors not voting the way they are supposed to in December--you have made me question why I don't even know the names of those electors.  Honestly, according to the Hamilton quotation above, I am supposed to be voting for representatives who are going to reason well.  Maybe they should be under more scrutiny?

 

Some of you want to do away with EC because "votes aren't equal." I propose you are looking at the US as a direct democracy.  I know you "know" we aren't one.  I know you "know" we are called a representative democracy.  I think logically, however, you are assuming things that are true of a direct democracy.  Let me explain:  

 

Someone questioned why an Iowa farmer's vote weighs more than a NYC cab driver's.  The answer is: technically that is an invalid question.  They aren't meant to be compared.  The cab driver's vote counts as much the governor's--in New York.  That is democracy.  The farmer's vote counts as much as the governor's--in Iowa.  That is democracy.  But to lure Iowa into the republic and protect Iowa from being overpowered by New York, in the federal system, they have to be closer to equal.  Hence, the Senate.  Equal representation.

 

There is validity to the argument that in the government  more populous areas should have more weight.  Hence, the House of Representatives.  

 

And the compromise is that a bill has to pass both Houses before it becomes law. 

 

The EC is kind of like the bill having to pass through both Houses.  A few posters made half an argument that because we have the Senate, the rural states are equally represented in Congress--and somehow they reached the conclusion that in the presidential election there didn't need to be a safeguard for those same states.  Huh?

Was the rest of your argument that you want to disband the House of Representatives, thereby giving rural people the power in the Legislative Branch while handing over the Executive Branch to the urban populations?  Of course not--the EC is the compromise reached in the Executive Branch.

 

And those of you that insist the Founding Fathers didn't foresee things as they are so we should just chuck their restrictions, I just want to humbly point out:

 

I am a product of  Progressive education.  Presumably, we are drawn to this forum with the intention of acquiring a classical education, for ourselves and our children.  That is us acknowledging that a classical education was for free men.  Progressive education has been all about  producing a population that can be led easily.  The Founding Fathers were classically educated. They disagreed vehemently over all this, reasoned well, and came up with a solution.  I am all for discussing--I love it!--but I feel humbleness.  I think it the height of hubris to expound my opinions on such matters as "the way things should be."  I would have to read every bit of the debates of the early republic before I thought I had a real handle on the issue.  Don't you?

 

To the question of why European republics don't need the EC, my off-the-cuff response would be: size.  I had the privilege of studying Economic Education in Latvia about ten years ago, and it was a surprise to me how well the Nationalized education seemed to work there--but all those countries are the size of our states, roughly speaking.  So what works in a smaller region, won't necessarily transfer to a larger.  Can you imagine Europe (all languages being same) having one popular election? I agree that this is not a great argument--communication is faster now, people are more transient, and we see ourselves as a nation first, statehood second, if at all.  Many of us have no state loyalty at all--but the regional differences still apply, even if only from an economic and infrastructure standpoint.  (I don't concede these are the only differences, however.)

 

My major objection to the EC is that it encourages a two party system comprised of divisive, polarizing political candidates.

 

In general, 50-75% of the EC votes have already been decided for all intents and purposes before the parties have even declared their nominees.

 

This leaves us with 4-10 swing states that will decide the election.  Now, granted, the swing states do subtly change over time, so if the candidates were motivated to broadly appeal to all the residents of those 4-10 states, then maybe that would make the disenfranchisement of large swathes of voters worthwhile.  

 

But, in actuality, the last thing the candidates want to do is campaign on too broad and inclusive a platform in the swing states.  If Candidate A proposes a balanced, compromising plan that would partially appeal to all the voters in a swing states, then he or she is vulnerable to Candidate B coming in and making radical, unbalanced promises to half of the voters and securing 51% of the vote by throwing the other 49% of the voters to the wolves.

 

In a winner take all system, middle of the road is the worst place to be, because you are attempting to appease too many people without locking up to 51% of the vote that you NEED.

 

I would actually be relatively happy if the EC functioned with all states allotting their electors proportionally by some system similar to Maine and Nebraska.  To me, that would be the equivalent of the balance the legislature strikes by having both the Senate and the House.  The EC would still give small states disproportionate amounts of voting power, but on the state level, candidates would be motivated to appeal to as many segments of the population as possible because each group would have much more control over who won their EC vote.

 

Wendy

[wendyroo]

According to CNN, Trump received 60,265,858 of the popular vote, and Clinton received 60,839,922. If you subtract California's numbers from those totals, Trump ends up 57,114,037 total (60,265,858 - 3,151,821) and Clinton ends up with 54,979,208 (60,839,922 - 5,860,714). Without California in the mix, Trump easily wins the popular vote of the rest of the nation. And IMO, that is why we still need the Electoral College. No single state should have that much power over the other 49.

 

The EC is also very detrimental to California.

 

There are almost 40 million Californians.  40 million!!  

 

Those 40 million people are old and young and rich and poor and urban and rural and blue collar and white collar, and they are now represented by a president elect who never even had to pretend to care about ANY of their issues because the EC made their votes irrelevant.

 

If California's electoral votes had been awarded proportionally, Trump would have won ~19 votes there and Clinton would have only won 36ish.  That is the sort of system that would keep California's power in check (each citizen there would still be woefully under-represented compared to less populous states), while encouraging politicians to campaign broadly and propose policies that appeal to as many people as possible.

 

Wendy

[KarenNC]

The EC is also very detrimental to California.

 

There are almost 40 million Californians.  40 million!!  

 

Those 40 million people are old and young and rich and poor and urban and rural and blue collar and white collar, and they are now represented by a president elect who never even had to pretend to care about ANY of their issues because the EC made their votes irrelevant.

 

If California's electoral votes had been awarded proportionally, Trump would have won ~19 votes there and Clinton would have only won 36ish.  That is the sort of system that would keep California's power in check (each citizen there would still be woefully under-represented compared to less populous states), while encouraging politicians to campaign broadly and propose policies that appeal to as many people as possible.

 

Wendy

 

I think the proportional idea is worth investigating, but I would want to see an end to gerrymandering of districts within states first. I don't know if this a big issue in states other than NC, but here, whichever side is in power at the time districts are redrawn after the census has always done so to keep themselves in power. Functionally, it is no different than the concerns being expressed about the electoral college. Many districts are "safe" so there is no need to try to appeal to, honestly, many but the more extreme parts of one's own party because the only competitive race will be the primary. Based on many conversations I've had, this discourages voters from the other party from participating in the general election. Further, in NC, the initial redistricting this time was actually thrown out because it was done on a racial basis, with the intent of diluting the influence of African-Americans. http://www.npr.org/2016/03/10/469548881/north-carolinas-congressional-primaries-are-a-mess-because-of-these-maps  and https://ballotpedia.org/Redistricting_in_North_Carolina I would love to see a requirement for nonpartisan independent boards to set up the boundaries, since both parties have shown they can't handle it equitably.

Edited November 12, 2016 by KarenNC

[MistyMountain]

Only 18 percent of people in our country live rurally. Just because they take up more space does not mean they should be weighed more heavily then the 82 percent that do not. I keep seeing the map that is mostly red being used as the reason we need the EC. Of those rural people an even smaller percentage are farmers. A lot of people live in California population wise but it is a very diverse state that produces a lot of food.

[Guest]

Only 18 percent of people in our country live rurally. Just because they take up more space does not mean they should be weighed more heavily then the 82 percent that do not. I keep seeing the map that is mostly red being used as the reason we need the EC. Of those rural people an even smaller percentage are farmers. A lot of people live in California population wise but it is a very diverse state that produces a lot of food.

Rural is also a weird designation - many people live outside of city centers but aren't, say, in a situation as rural as Karen. Some states also have vast swaths of uninhabitable land due to climate OR state/federal ownership (like us!) that concentrates the population in pockets but the overall numbers are still small. That's why states have independent governance in addition to the federal coalition. It allows the most flexibility locally for responding to specific needs while still pooling federally for things best handled on a larger scale like certain infrastructure and defense.

[Guest]

...many people live outside of city centers but aren't, say, in a situation as rural as Karen.

Hey now. (LOL)

[MistyMountain]

People live out of city centers themselves but in the wider metro area surrounding them. Urban clusters which are not quite as big are a small part percentage wise of the urban designation.

Edited November 12, 2016 by MistyMountain

[Guest]

Hey now. (LOL)

You're my poster child for real rural, along with my friends in the Aleutian Islands or far inland off the road system here in Alaska. There is rural, then there's that :D

[SKL]

They still haven't finished counting the popular vote, so there is that.  When we have a system that counts ALL votes within a reasonable time, it will make sense to do it that way.

 

Of course, the change would have to be prospective.  All the campaigns built their strategy knowing how the Electoral College works.  If they were going for popular vote, they would have done things differently and the election results would be different.

[Spy Car]

(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'm afraid we no longer have non-election years, IYKWIM.

 

Bill

Edited November 12, 2016 by Spy Car

I think people are getting caught up in the rural vs. urban distinctions because of the most recent election.

 

But I don't think the EC really breaks down that way -- consider Washington D.C., with 3 electoral votes and 600k residents,  I wouldn't consider DC rural, or many other tiny eastern states, but they are disproportionately represented in the EC, just like states we'd consider mostly rural, like Wyoming and Montana.

[Daria]

I think people are getting caught up in the rural vs. urban distinctions because of the most recent election.

 

But I don't think the EC really breaks down that way -- consider Washington D.C., with 3 electoral votes and 600k residents,  I wouldn't consider DC rural, or many other tiny eastern states, but they are disproportionately represented in the EC, just like states we'd consider mostly rural, like Wyoming and Montana.

 

DC is an anomaly, and isn't represented at all in the Congress, so I figure it balances out.

 

If you look at the top 10 places for voting power per person, the other 9 are all disproportionately rural, and white.

 

1.  Wyoming (92.7% white, 35% rural)

2. Vermont (95% white, 61% rural)

3. D.C. (43% white, 0 % rural)

4. North Dakota (90% white, 40% rural)

5. Alaska (67% white, 34% rural)

6. South Dakota (86% white, 43% rural)

7. Rhode Island (86% white, 9% rural)

8.Delaware (71% white, 17% rural)

9. Montana (90% white, 44% rural)

10. New Hampshire (94% white, 40% rural)

 

Given national averages of 63% white, and 15% rural, that means that 9/10 states with the highest per capita representation in the Electoral College are whiter than average, and 7/10 are more that twice as rural than average. 

[Guest]

Florida in 2000?

 

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.  

 

Given national averages of 63% white, and 15% rural, that means that 9/10 states with the highest per capita representation in the Electoral College are whiter than average, and 7/10 are more that twice as rural than average. 

 

But half of the top ten are either DC or in New England, which isn't the kind of rural that most people think about when they are talking about ignored-by-the-elite fly-over states.

 

Don't get me wrong, I certainly think the Electoral College isn't the best way for the US to select a president (and not because of this election), I just think that portraying it as "the protector of the rural" isn't quite correct.

[Guest]

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.

*love*