How big of a vote gap would it take for you to drop the Electoral College?

[fredtoast]

(04-03-2019, 03:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  The EC has been the law of the land for over a century, there is no argument necessary to maintain what we've had in practice for so long.

That makes no sense at all.  We have amended that Constitution over 20 times already.  The framers even included the rules for amending the Constitution.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-03-2019, 02:39 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The only way the EC should be kept is if all votes are equal among voters. If you have any state where it takes twice as many citizens to make up an electoral vote compared to another state, then it is an undemocratic institution. Right now we have states where it takes four times as many people as other states. This is an inequitable process. No person's vote should count more than another person's.

Except it already does and it always has.  The process in inequitable in this fashion by design.  I again return to the example of the Senate.  the mere fact that it exists is sufficient proof that the Framers did not want a purely representative democracy.  I again return to the point of the tyranny of the majority.  These features you take issue with are by design. 

Quote:Clinton didn't lose for ignoring the rural areas, she ignored the rust belt. But the focus in the rust belt is still in more urban areas, the industrial centers. To go the rural route there is inefficient for a campaign. They just don't do it. There is no incentive to go to rural areas now, and no incentive for them to pay attention to their plights, now.

Wisconsin isn't a rural area?  I called her losing Michigan and Pennsylvania, but I was surprised she lost Wisconsin.  There absolutely is a reason to go there now and Clinton just provided the most recent example of it.

Quote:To be fair, my campaign against the EC began after Gore lost. That being said, that was also when I was 15 and really just starting to pay attention to these sorts of things. I was also a libertarian type in my teen years, so that was likely a big reason.

Not that I knew this, exactly, but there was a reason I excluded you from that statement.  I think you would have to admit that a large percentage of the people kvetching about this issue are as I described.

Quote:So by utilizing a winner-take-all system, we discount the votes of millions of people. A Republican in your state has a wasted vote. A Democrat in Mississippi has a wasted vote. This goes back to my viewpoint that every vote should count equally, which is the cornerstone of my position. Right now that does not happen.

So how do you propose we fix this inequity in the race for governor of those particular states? 

Quote:In the spirit of the debates of the Constitutional Convention, how would you feel about allocation based on House District, with the two remaining Electors being allocated with a state overall vote, much like the way seats are handled in Congress?

Again, no, as it would achieve essentially the same effect as a popular vote total.  I agree with your idea to expand HoR numbers, this would, at least partially, address your concern.  I would not be in favor of a system as you just described.

[CJD]

(04-03-2019, 03:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: To the same extent they always have.  Are we now advocating to abolish the concepts of states as well?

No. But why is it important what state you happen to live in when you decide who is running the Federal government? At least with a popular vote, you'll know, for better or worse, the majority of the voters got the President they want. The alternative is what has happened in 2 of the last 5 elections, which is we get a President that most people did not want.

If both scenarios devalue the rural areas of the country, why is the rural area argument even brought up?

[fredtoast]

(04-03-2019, 03:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So you're in favor of abolishing the Senate now too?  Wow, you far left types can't stop finding things about this country you want to utterly change.

No.  I have already said that I do not mind the states getting votes based on seats in Congress.  I am just against the "all or nothing" allocation of EC votes.

(04-03-2019, 03:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Except it already does and it always has.  The process in inequitable in this fashion by design.  I again return to the example of the Senate.  the mere fact that it exists is sufficient proof that the Framers did not want a purely representative democracy.  I again return to the point of the tyranny of the majority.  These features you take issue with are by design. 

But the existence of the House of representatives proves that the founders wanted each individual voice to be represented based on separate districts.  They did not make a rule that every representative from a state had to vote exactly the same.


So if we are going by the will of the framers we would have the EC but not the "all or nothing" allocation of delegates, correct?

[GMDino]

(04-03-2019, 03:21 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: No. But why is it important what state you happen to live in when you decide who is running the Federal government? At least with a popular vote, you'll know, for better or worse, the majority of the voters got the President they want. The alternative is what has happened in 2 of the last 5 elections, which is we get a President that most people did not want.

If both scenarios devalue the rural areas of the country, why is the rural area argument even brought up?

I'd add that those claiming this only because DJT won are ignoring that it happening once can be written off as an aberration. Twice in 20 years?  he start of a pattern/problem.

Add in that more people are more connected and aware now and you see a groundswell for changing a system that isn't giving consistent results no matter who won.

[Benton]

(04-03-2019, 12:05 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Not sure I agree with that. The ability to win one state will provide a third with legitimacy. For instance the other guy I voted for besides Trump gave it a hell of a run in Utah. Popular vote: he wouldn't have made a blip. 

Understood, and a valid point.

On the other hand, it's doubtful a third party candidate will win any state unless some random act knocks the two major party candidates off the ballot. Even if some miraculous fail of paperwork were to happen, it would likely have to be in the half of the states where electors are bound by law to vote for whoever gets the majority; if the third party candidate is in the other half, the electors can veto their voters.

People primarily don't vote third party because they feel it's a wasted for. With the EC, they're correct. With popular vote, a candidate is worth exactly what people think they're worth, not what an elector thinks they're worth.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-03-2019, 03:21 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: No. But why is it important what state you happen to live in when you decide who is running the Federal government? At least with a popular vote, you'll know, for better or worse, the majority of the voters got the President they want. The alternative is what has happened in 2 of the last 5 elections, which is we get a President that most people did not want.

If both scenarios devalue the rural areas of the country, why is the rural area argument even brought up?

For reasons already stated?  Pure democracy is not a desirable outcome.  If you disagree then ask yourself when the Civil Rights Act would have actually earned a majority of the popular vote.  The answer sure as hell isn't when it was enacted.  How about same sex marriage?  If you brought that up for a popular vote it wouldn't certainly pass today.  The majority can be in favor of some really ugly things and the Framers were well aware of this.  I don't seen any reason to change the current system and plenty of reason to keep it.

(04-03-2019, 03:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  I have already said that I do not mind the states getting votes based on seats in Congress.  I am just against the "all or nothing" allocation of EC votes.

Which, as I stated to Bels, is essentially the same thing as a pure popular vote.

Quote:But the existence of the House of representatives proves that the founders wanted each individual voice to be represented based on separate districts.  They did not make a rule that every representative from a state had to vote exactly the same.

But the existence of the Senate proves that the founders wanted each state to have an equal say in the Congress regardless of population.  Look, if there was no Senate I'd be forced to agree with you on the EC, despite my already stated objections to the plan you favor.  However, the existence of the Senate is solid, undeniable, proof that the Framers did not want a pure Democracy, never did and in fact created a form of government that deliberately avoids it.

Quote:So if we are going by the will of the framers we would have the EC but not the "all or nothing" allocation of delegates, correct?

I believe, as Bels pointed out, that the all or nothing delegates is decided at a state level.  In any event the electors can, and just did, vote for other candidates than those that won the state.  Now, if you wanted to make a law that the electors had to vote for who won the state I'd be in agreement with that.

[BmorePat87]

(04-03-2019, 01:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   A pure popular vote POTUS election will see the vast majority of states completely ignored by candidates and if you can safely ignore an area and still et elected what incentive is there for you to address the problems being faces by the peoples of those areas?  If we're talking about compassionate people then there'd always be a humane reason for doing so, but forgive me for being a bit cynical about presidential candidates in this regard.

Under our current system, 68% of 2016 general election campaign events were in 6 states. Those states account for 21% of our population.

94% where in just 12 states (an additional 7%).

Iowa had 21 campaign events for their 3 million voters. New Hampshire's 1.3m voters got 21 events too.

So 94% of campaigning under the EC is done where 28% of the nation lives. 28% of the nation (25 states total) had no visits. The other 44% (13 states) got 24 total visits (6%). LOL, 144 million Americans had 3 more campaign visits than New Hampshire's 1.3 million. 92 million Americans had none. 

So what you're suggesting will happen if we have a popular vote already happens to an extreme degree because of the EC. 

Is it a surprise that Florida, which had the most visits (71), had more total voters than Texas (1 visit), even though Florida has 3/4ths the population? Yea, obviously New Hampshire may not get any visits now, but do they need 21 visits at the expense of 25 other states getting none?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14Lxw0vc4YBUwQ8cZouyewZvOGg6PyzS2mArWNe3iJcY/edit#gid=0

[CJD]

(04-03-2019, 04:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: For reasons already stated?  Pure democracy is not a desirable outcome.  If you disagree then ask yourself when the Civil Rights Act would have actually earned a majority of the popular vote.  The answer sure as hell isn't when it was enacted.  How about same sex marriage?  If you brought that up for a popular vote it wouldn't certainly pass today.  The majority can be in favor of some really ugly things and the Framers were well aware of this.  I don't seen any reason to change the current system and plenty of reason to keep it.

I'm sorry. I didn't notice any reasons as I was participating in this discussion. It seemed to be "If you go to popular vote, the rural areas get ignored" but then...rural areas are going to inevitably be ignored. Because there just aren't a lot of votes there (both popular votes and electoral votes). The Democrats have ignored rural areas for ages. The entire center and south of the United States is Red every single election, with only a few exceptions. 

At least the popular vote would make their votes be worth the same as the city dwellers votes, even if it means that politicians wouldn't really campaign there as often. The electoral college vote makes Democratic votes in Red states and Republican votes in Blue states, literally, worthless. Which is an odd way to do an election. The Electoral college takes a nation's worth of votes and reduces them down to 10 states where politicians even bother campaigning seriously.

As for the point on civil rights...I dunno. I wasn't alive during the Civil Rights movement, so I can't say how popular it actually was at the time. I assume it was popular enough to make politicians think they needed to pass the law. 

As for Same Sex Marriage...I'm pretty sure it was insanely popular when it was made legal. Unless I was in some extreme liberal bubble. It didn't even seem to be controversial in my eyes (and the eyes of my social media). Maybe I'm mistaken.

But I'm not saying make every law a popular vote. That's what politicians are for. I'm simply talking about the leader of our Federal government. Trying to extend my hopes for a more democratic system seems like a slippery slope fallacy on your part. Am I mistaking what you're saying?

[fredtoast]

(04-03-2019, 04:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: For reasons already stated?  Pure democracy is not a desirable outcome.  If you disagree then ask yourself when the Civil Rights Act would have actually earned a majority of the popular vote.  The answer sure as hell isn't when it was enacted.

So much wrong here.

1.  The Supreme Court is in place to avoid a tyranny of the majority.

2.  Legislators passing laws to protect a minority is completely different from saying the minority should win popular elections.

3.  By 1963, one year before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act, 85% of whites polled in a National Opinion Research Center survey endorsed the view that “Negroes should have as good a chance to get any kind of job” and rejected the position that “white people should have the first chance at any kind of job” (endorsed by only 15%). This contrasts with 55% who said that “white people should have the first chance” on the same question in 1942 and 51% who said so in 1944.  Similarly, 73% of whites questioned in a 1963 NORC poll embraced the view that “Negroes should have the right to use the same parks, restaurants, and hotels, as white people.” The same 1963 study also showed that 79% of whites rejected the idea that transportation in streetcars and buses should be segregated, compared to 54% who had endorsed it in 1942 (both the 1942 and 1963 questions used the same wording). http://volokh.com/2010/05/24/public-opinion-anti-discrimination-law-and-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964/

The Civil Rights Act passed because it reflected public opinion.  In fact Kennedy did not make any moves on civil rights early in his presidency because the south was solid Democrat.  He was not forced to do anything until the photos from the nightmare in Birmingham made the national news and public opinion made him.

[Belsnickel]

(04-03-2019, 03:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Except it already does and it always has.  The process in inequitable in this fashion by design.  I again return to the example of the Senate.  the mere fact that it exists is sufficient proof that the Framers did not want a purely representative democracy.  I again return to the point of the tyranny of the majority.  These features you take issue with are by design. 

I disagree entirely with your premise that this is the design because the Electoral College does not exist as it was designed. As I pointed out in another post, the reasons for the Electoral College are moot because of it not acting as it was intended. We no longer vote for Electors, we vote for president and vice-president. The design was that we elect people to make the decision on our behalf.

Since we aren't utilizing the process in that way, any argument that the way the EC currently works is how it was designed is fallacious.

(04-03-2019, 03:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Wisconsin isn't a rural area?  I called her losing Michigan and Pennsylvania, but I was surprised she lost Wisconsin.  There absolutely is a reason to go there now and Clinton just provided the most recent example of it.

Not all of Wisconsin rural. Even Wyoming, Alaska, and Montana have urban centers.

(04-03-2019, 03:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not that I knew this, exactly, but there was a reason I excluded you from that statement.  I think you would have to admit that a large percentage of the people kvetching about this issue are as I described.

Oh, absolutely. I've been on this ride for a long time and get frustrated with it. But I'm enjoying using the fact the argument is in the current Zeitgeist to help the push.

(04-03-2019, 03:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So how do you propose we fix this inequity in the race for governor of those particular states? 

There is no inequity in a direct popular election, save voter suppression. Each vote counts as one vote.

(04-03-2019, 03:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Again, no, as it would achieve essentially the same effect as a popular vote total.  I agree with your idea to expand HoR numbers, this would, at least partially, address your concern.  I would not be in favor of a system as you just described.

Not necessarily. In 2012 the Republicans maintained control of the House, even though there were more votes cast for Democrats in House elections. Much like the current system, there is a possibility for that to happen, but it lessens the probability.

[fredtoast]

(04-03-2019, 03:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  I have already said that I do not mind the states getting votes based on seats in Congress.  I am just against the "all or nothing" allocation of EC votes.

(04-03-2019, 04:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Which, as I stated to Bels, is essentially the same thing as a pure popular vote.

No it isn't because each state gets two senate votes no matter what their population is.  California has almost 80 times as many citizens as Wyoming but they both get 2 senate seats.

[fredtoast]

(04-03-2019, 03:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So how do you propose we fix this inequity in the race for governor of those particular states?  

There is no inequality on the state races.  Each vote counts exactly the same.

The reason people say a blue vote in red state is a waste is because that vote can not be used to cancel out another red vote in another state.

My vote is usually for the loser in the Tennessee gubernatorial race, but at least I know my vote was counted against every other vote in the state.  However my vote in the Presidential election is a waste because it can't be used to cancel out some other vote for the other party made in a different state.

[fredtoast]

(04-03-2019, 04:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  However, the existence of the Senate is solid, undeniable, proof that the Framers did not want a pure Democracy, never did and in fact created a form of government that deliberately avoids it.


 Now, if you wanted to make a law that the electors had to vote for who won the state I'd be in agreement with that.

You seem to be speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

How can you be in favor of the "all or nothing" allocation when the Framers made it clear that not every representative from each state had to vote in a block?

[*bfine32*]

(04-03-2019, 12:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Sorry to jump in late but does the EC require that states can not split up their delegates. I have no prblem with the states getting votes based on seats in congress. I just disagree with the "all or nothing" allocation.

Hell, Fred and I agree. The percentage that you earn in a State should be the percentage of that's State's EC you get. Of course that would be kinda hard to break up Swing State Montana's 3 "unfair" ECs. 

That would still give States the sense that they matter. Abolish the EC and folks in some states are going to say : "F-it" They don't want to hear our voice. 

[hollodero]

(04-03-2019, 03:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, but not in the same way.  Safe states still get attention from candidates though, Clinton certainly campaigned in both CA and NY.  Even so, why exacerbate an undesirable situation?

I don't see the huge exacerbation. If votes count equally for you from everywhere, a candidate would campaign accordingly. Sure focussing on population centers, but I don't see anything wrong with that. Protecting rural areas from areas with more votes seems a bit odd to me, especially since those lesser populated states have a huge overrepresentation in the senate already.

I have a fundamental issue with the government telling me my vote should be weighed less because I live in the city and not in a rural state. That is strange to me. Why should it? Are my wishes and desires less valuable in a democracy just because where I live?

Also, why does my vote count for the team the majority in my state voted for, not what I actually voted for? What's the advantage? One sees a quite low election turnout in the US, and this kind of pointlessness might play a role in that frustration. It's hard to be engaged in that environment. Why even bother vote republican in California? 

[BmorePat87]

(04-03-2019, 06:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hell, Fred and I agree. The percentage that you earn in a State should be the percentage of that's State's EC you get. Of course that would be kinda hard to break up Swing State Montana's 3 "unfair" ECs. 

That would still give States the sense that they matter.

At the very least, it should be proportional as you two are suggestion.

Quote: Abolish the EC and folks in some states are going to say : "F-it" They don't want to hear our voice. 

Currently 25 state aren't even visited by campaigns, but that would likely change a chunk of electoral votes were in play. Millions of Republicans in California and New York and millions of Democrats in Texas and Georgia would be engaged by campaigns rather than New Hampshire and Iowa hosting over 10% of all campaign events. 

[Dill]

(04-03-2019, 11:57 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I view the EC in the same terms I view the Senate.  It's designed so that states have a separate say in the election of who leads them.  I've seen many posts lamenting the inflated importance of a vote in Wyoming compared to California.  This is no different than pointing out that each senator from Wyoming represents a fraction of the citizens that a senator from California does.  The tyranny of the majority was a legitimate concern for the Framers and both these institutions acts as a bulwark against that.

I've seen many post lamenting the few "swing states" that decide elections and get most of the attention from candidates.  Abolishing the EC won't change this, it will only change the targeted areas.  Instead of campaigning in Ohio, Florida, etc.  you'll get campaigning in NYC, LA, Chicago, Boston and Miami.  Rural areas will be utterly ignored as the time spent in them won't justify the potential votes earned.  Essentially, abolishing the EC does not fix this problem it merely shifts attention to other places.

The United States is unique in many ways and one of those ways is that it is a collection of states with the ability to act autonomously to a certain degree.  Population centers are naturally located near the coasts, but this not mean our inland states are any less important or any less a state than the coastal ones.  The EC does an excellent job of giving each state their own, separate, say in who leads this nation.  I think abolishing it would be an extremely poor decision and I do think this discussion is flavored with more than a little sour grapes (not here necessarily, but in general).

Well argued. When did states become invisible? They aren't just arbitrary boundaries around differently massed voters. Abolishing the EC would not only shift the old problems to new places; it would actually create new ones and greatly exacerbate the current red/blue divide.

I am surprised that so many don't see a problem with the majoritarian ideal they usually oppose to the EC. Madison certainly did; hence his references in the Federalist papers to two systems of government as the first check in our system of checks and balances.

And I may be the unhappiest person here with how the election turned out (only because I hate Trump, lol), but I'm not going to change the rules so my side wins all the time.  

[Belsnickel]

(04-03-2019, 06:57 PM)Dill Wrote: Well argued. When did states become invisible? They aren't just arbitrary boundaries around differently massed voters. Abolishing the EC would not only shift the old problems to new places; it would actually create new ones and greatly exacerbate the current red/blue divide.

I disagree. The whole concept of states being red or blue would no longer be relevant. For example, in 2016 California gave Trump 4.5 million votes, almost as many as both Florida and Texas that went for Trump. But Trump would have actually gotten those votes, meaning the state wasn't just blue, it was 1/3 red. I contend that ridding ourselves of the Electoral College would move us away from labeling states in a particular way, which could help us move away from the divisive nature of things.

(04-03-2019, 06:57 PM)Dill Wrote: I am surprised that so many don't see a problem with the majoritarian ideal they usually oppose to the EC. Madison certainly did; hence his references in the Federalist papers to two systems of government as the first check in our system of checks and balances.

Interesting, the second specific Founder that is brought up, and also one that advocated for a national popular vote for president.

(04-03-2019, 06:57 PM)Dill Wrote: And I may be the unhappiest person here with how the election turned out (only because I hate Trump, lol), but I'm not going to change the rules so my side wins all the time.  

That's because that's not a good reason to change the rules. Inequity among voters, undemocratic and unrepresentative institutions, antiquated policies, those are all valid reasons to make a change. All of those are describing the Electoral College in modern times.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-03-2019, 04:54 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Under our current system, 68% of 2016 general election campaign events were in 6 states. Those states account for 21% of our population.

94% where in just 12 states (an additional 7%).

Iowa had 21 campaign events for their 3 million voters. New Hampshire's 1.3m voters got 21 events too.

So 94% of campaigning under the EC is done where 28% of the nation lives. 28% of the nation (25 states total) had no visits. The other 44% (13 states) got 24 total visits (6%). LOL, 144 million Americans had 3 more campaign visits than New Hampshire's 1.3 million. 92 million Americans had none. 

So what you're suggesting will happen if we have a popular vote already happens to an extreme degree because of the EC. 

Is it a surprise that Florida, which had the most visits (71), had more total voters than Texas (1 visit), even though Florida has 3/4ths the population? Yea, obviously New Hampshire may not get any visits now, but do they need 21 visits at the expense of 25 other states getting none?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14Lxw0vc4YBUwQ8cZouyewZvOGg6PyzS2mArWNe3iJcY/edit#gid=0

I appreciate the detail and the source.  It doesn't change my point though.  Eliminating the EC would merely shift the focus from those battleground states to large population centers.  This doesn't solve the problem, it merely shifts it to somewhere else.  At least under the current system a candidate must be cognizant of the lower population states.  Under a popular vote system there is zero reason to give them even a moments though.