Electoral College Appeal

[Belsnickel]

(11-12-2016, 08:51 PM)treee Wrote: I think you're using the term boosted differently than me. When I say boosted, I mean an advantage given other than 1 person, 1 vote. With the EC some people's votes are more important than others and it favors Republicans.

I agree that going by the popular vote would be problematic, but a disparity between actual votes and the results is also problematic. 

Apparently the census doesn't happen often enough for the EC to be more accurate.

I did the math in another thread, the EC gives more weight to the high population states than the popular vote. The idea that the popular vote gives more weight to them is just false.

[treee]

(11-12-2016, 09:11 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I did the math in another thread, the EC gives more weight to the high population states than the popular vote. The idea that the popular vote gives more weight to them is just false.

Wait, doesn't that destroy the whole argument for using EC in the first place?

[Belsnickel]

(11-12-2016, 09:13 PM)treee Wrote: Wait, doesn't that destroy the whole argument for using EC in the first place?

Yes and no. There is more than reason the EC was implemented.

[xxlt]

(11-11-2016, 06:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I have no ethical issue with the idea of it. I don't see the good in a President that did not garner the plurality of the votes. On a pragmatic level I take issue with the idea because it will spark the next civil war in this country.

Aye, but Trump's installation may spark that same war.

[JustWinBaby]

(11-12-2016, 08:51 PM)treee Wrote: I think you're using the term boosted differently than me. When I say boosted, I mean an advantage given other than 1 person, 1 vote. With the EC some people's votes are more important than others and it favors Republicans.

I don't think I am - you're referring to a bias/unfairness or whatever you want to call it that is just as present in popular vote.

Again, the House/Senate/POTUS all balance geography and population differently.  It may not be perfect, but I disagree that it's all about population to the absolute exclusion of geography.

The reason the EC doesn't always follow the popular vote is because there is clear [environmental] geographic influence in voting.  We aren't electing POTUS of CA, or of Chicago or Denver...it's the entire country, all communities, etc....And what the EC attempts to do, in theory, is give those communities a somewhat proportional say by adjusting for the groupthink of denser population centers that introduces more bias into the popular vote.

Put another way, if 60% of Chicago votes Democrat...if you spread those people around the US you would end-up with a lower % voting Democrat.  So, no, what the EC actually does is partially offset the undue influence of geography in a nation-wide election.

If people migrated en-masse out of the large population centers into the rural/less-dense areas, I suspect you'd see the popular vote becoming more Republican. (lol, to the extent the parties are actually different)

[JustWinBaby]

(11-12-2016, 09:13 PM)treee Wrote: Wait, doesn't that destroy the whole argument for using EC in the first place?

EC is determined by the number of reps, plus 2 senators, in each state.

So you're vote counts equally in your state for your senators, and in your district for your reps. 

This is just an odd argument to me because I don't hear people complaining that 2 Senators per state is wrong.  Your vote for POTUS is exactly proportional to your say in the House and Senate.  And putting aside gerrymandering, I also don't hear many people saying it's unfair you don't get to vote for ALL the reps in your state.

If CA were 80% Democrat, we're still only going to give them 55 reps, and 55 electoral votes. We're not going to let them "export" that 30% margin, nor give them 30% more electoral votes. How CA chooses will not impact how OH chooses to cast it's electoral votes.

So what the EC really comes down to is your vote counts equally within your state, and that state is going to cast it's electoral votes by popular tally.  But what it's not going to do, given disparities in demographics and ideology between, say CA and FL, is adjust your electoral count up or down based on how the popular votes skews relative to national averages.

Can the EC lines be drawn better, perhaps not even based along state lines?  Probably.  Would it be better to break the EC into more geographies (say 200 Presidential "precincts" instead of 53 or whatever?).  Possibly.  But somewhere in the formula you have to limit or adjust undue influence of dense population centers.

[xxlt]

(11-12-2016, 09:56 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: EC is determined by the number of reps, plus 2 senators, in each state.

So you're vote counts equally in your state for your senators, and in your district for your reps. 

This is just an odd argument to me because I don't hear people complaining that 2 Senators per state is wrong.  Your vote for POTUS is exactly proportional to your say in the House and Senate.  And putting aside gerrymandering, I also don't hear many people saying it's unfair you don't get to vote for ALL the reps in your state.

So what the EC really comes down to is your vote counts equally within your state, and that state is going to cast it's electoral votes by popular tally.  But what it's not going to do, given disparities in demographics and ideology between, say CA and FL, is adjust your electoral count up or down based on how the popular votes skews relative to national averages.

Can the EC lines be drawn better, perhaps not even based along state lines?  Probably.  Would it be better to break the EC into more geographies (say 200 Presidential "precincts" instead of 53 or whatever?).  Possibly.  But somewhere in the formula you have to limit or adjust undue influence of dense population centers.

Why? Why not limit or adjust the undue influence of sparse population centers?

[JustWinBaby]

(11-12-2016, 10:03 PM)xxlt Wrote: Why? Why not limit or adjust the undue influence of sparse population centers?

Because there is no undue influence of sparse population centers.  You're grouping them together, when said "sparse population centers" are, by definition, separated by geography and not prone to as much groupthink.

If the rest of country is 51% Repub, but CA has 10M more democratic voters...then by popular vote CA chooses your POTUS eventhough the majority of voters in EVERY OTHER STATE would have chosen differently.  That's wrong.

Based on population, CA gets a % say in election of the POTUS.  It's voters have an equal say in making that choice.  The margin does not get exported to overturn how another state wants to choose.  The people in FL get to cast a 4% or whatever say in who is POTUS, and it will remain 4% regardless of how many people 3000 miles away in CA vote Democrat.

[JustWinBaby]

Let's say every Democrat in the country moved to CA, and they end-up with 225 electoral votes as a result. Every other state comfortably votes Repub, and Trump still is POTUS despite losing the popular vote (because of independents).

To which I would say, if I wanted to live like the Dems in CA, I'd move to CA. If CA wants to decide how I live in my community, then let them come actually live here and vote alongside me with equal say.

[Belsnickel]

(11-12-2016, 09:56 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: This is just an odd argument to me because I don't hear people complaining that 2 Senators per state is wrong.  Your vote for POTUS is exactly proportional to your say in the House and Senate.  And putting aside gerrymandering, I also don't hear many people saying it's unfair you don't get to vote for ALL the reps in your state.

The POTUS isn't a representative of your state. Legislators cast votes on behalf of their state/district. POTUS represents the entire country. So the comparison you draw here doesn't really work.

Also, I have made the argument for getting rid of districts and going for proportional representation for the HoR on here.

[JustWinBaby]

(11-12-2016, 10:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The POTUS isn't a representative of your state. Legislators cast votes on behalf of their state/district. POTUS represents the entire country. So the comparison you draw here doesn't really work.

Sure it does, in so far as it illustrates the geography needs to, and is, taken into account.

And since he's chosen by the electoral college, he really is a representative of all the states.  And because those states are represented, correctly IMO, roughly in proportion to how they are in Congress then who that state wants to cast for is a decision the should be entirely up to the people in that state.  It's the United States of America, not the United People.

[GMDino]

(11-13-2016, 12:36 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Sure it does, in so far as it illustrates the geography needs to, and is, taken into account.

And since he's chosen by the electoral college, he really is a representative of all the states.  And because those states are represented, correctly IMO, roughly in proportion to how they are in Congress then who that state wants to cast for is a decision the should be entirely up to the people in that state.  It's the United States of America, not the United People.

I'm not for changing the EC...especially AFTER the election just because some people don't like the result.

But that's an over simplification in bold.

My county, where a Republican can barely get on the ballot in local elections voted a majority of republicans into office on the state level and above.

In fact Trump almost doubled Clinton in my home county. (Rural, an hour from Pittsburgh)

But does that go say then that the 17,000 people who did vote for Clinton shouldn't have their votes counted nationwide?  

In other words he won the county, by a 2 to 1 margin, but that doesn't make the county all red by any means.

[Belsnickel]

(11-13-2016, 12:36 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Sure it does, in so far as it illustrates the geography needs to, and is, taken into account.

And since he's chosen by the electoral college, he really is a representative of all the states.  And because those states are represented, correctly IMO, roughly in proportion to how they are in Congress then who that state wants to cast for is a decision the should be entirely up to the people in that state.  It's the United States of America, not the United People.

I could see your argument if the government of each state cast the votes, but the people do. What is happening is not what you are describing. The EC in its current form is a hybrid between a popular vote and what you are saying.

[Belsnickel]

[Trademark]

Got to love how so many people here support a murderer and traitor like Hillary. The electoral college is in place for a reason. Hillary conceded, Trump is the 45th president so deal with it.

[JustWinBaby]

(11-13-2016, 04:42 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I could see your argument if the government of each state cast the votes, but the people do. What is happening is not what you are describing. The EC in its current form is a hybrid between a popular vote and what you are saying.

Electoral votes are all-in for nearly every state.  Those are cast, by state, by popular vote.  And electoral votes are proportioned primarily according to census data.  OH has it's say, and CA has it's say...and how the vote goes in CA has no bearing on OH choice.

What do you think is incorrect about that?

[Belsnickel]

(11-13-2016, 07:05 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Electoral votes are all-in for nearly every state.  Those are cast, by state, by popular vote.  And electoral votes are proportioned primarily according to census data.  OH has it's say, and CA has it's say...and how the vote goes in CA has no bearing on OH choice.

What do you think is incorrect about that?

The idea of the states over the people is playing to the federalism argument. If we are looking at the federalism argument, then using the "ladder of federalism" it would be the government of the states that would cast the vote. It used to be, well, still is, that we elect political elites that are more in the know than the general public to cast their votes on our behalf. Now it is the expectation that those electors will cast their votes based on the popular votes of the states. That is a hybrid system from what was originally intended.

[samhain]

People who lose always hate the EC. Trump thought he was going to lose and he bashed it. Clinton lost and her supporters want it revisited. Regardless, it doesn't matter. It's how the rules are drawn up and they knew it going in.

Jesus, can you imagine the reaction from Trump supporters if some legislative body with actual power reversed the election in favor of Hillary? After he'd just won the election fair and square? We'd have a war in the streets. The absolute last thing this nation needs right now.

It's no secret at this point that I can't stand Trump. My hatred of him has less to do with traditional Republican platforms or even his boorish personalty. I just have a burning hatred for the "alt right" Neo Nazi shitheads that have latched onto his coattails. Their normalization and legitimization is unacceptable to me. Right or not, I wish violence and death upon their kind, which in itself makes me a shittier person than I was before I knew of their existence, and that sucks.

Otherwise, I'm willing to give the dude a chance if he keeps his distance from those clowns. To the victor go the spoils. If it becomes a traditional GOP administration due to his staff and inexperience, then it's nothing new. If it becomes an authoritarian semi-facist regime, stripping people of their civil rights, then I would encourage people to take to the streets as they are now, and hopefully in larger numbers. I'm hoping the latter is just a media construct at this point.

[Belsnickel]

(11-13-2016, 08:34 PM)samhain Wrote: People who lose always hate the EC. Trump thought he was going to lose and he bashed it. Clinton lost and her supporters want it revisited. Regardless, it doesn't matter. It's how the rules are drawn up and they knew it going in.

Jesus, can you imagine the reaction from Trump supporters if some legislative body with actual power reversed the election in favor of Hillary? After he'd just won the election fair and square? We'd have a war in the streets. The absolute last thing this nation needs right now.

No one here disagrees with that. The thing is, we've even had discussions about the EC before this. I've been involved with discussions ever since I knew what the EC was and how it worked about how it is an antiquated system and should be gotten rid of. And the 2000 election was before I could even vote. I don't think we should change what occurred with this election, but I think we need to have a serious conversation about the electoral processes in this country. Not just in relation to the EC, but for all of it.

[Aquapod770]

(11-11-2016, 06:10 PM)xxlt Wrote: Sorry for the ambiguous title, but a movement with a goal of getting EC electors to install Hillary as president seems to be getting legs.

Reasons it could be a good thing:

The presidency was already given to the wrong person once in very recent history (Bush president, Gore won election.) This would avoid that happening a second time.

The winner of the popular vote would be president.

The president would not be a naive lunatic.

Reasons it could be a bad thing:

Feeds into the "the system is rigged" narrative, even though the winner of the popular vote not being president feels sort of rigged too.

Second amendment rights enthusiasts who supported Trump are given an excuse to "fight for their rights."

The Doomsday Machine occupies the oval office.


Final thought (is Springer still on tv and does he still do this, lol?):

I've always hated the EC, even though usually the popular vote winner is elected president. Part of the reason is I think it distorts the will of the people when the electoral college numbers are the focus and not the p.v. The last president who could really claim a "mandate" was probably Nixon in 1972. Usually the popular vote is very close, which indicates there should be more compromise and less partisanship in DC.

Do you feel a case can be made for electors in any state to vote for the winner of the national popular vote, or alternately to vote their conscience if their state was very close and not an overwhelming win?