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

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-03-2019, 04:58 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: 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.

Sorry, but the fact that the Dems ignore the rural areas is not a very good argument for abolishing the EC.  It would only give them more incentive, if any was needed, to give them less attention.  Also, a party ignoring large swathes of the country is not a good thing.  As blue as CA is the GOP has not abandoned it.  

Quote: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.

Which, again, is exactly what happens on state level elections.  I don't understand why it's ok for this to happen at the state level, "because at least your vote is counted", and not at the federal.  Also, the EC doesn't reduce an entire nation's votes to 10 states, that's just how it often breaks down.  Honestly, the fact that there are so few "swing" states should concern you far more than the EC does.

Quote: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. 

Neither was I, but I can read books and watch documentaries.  I don't think anyone can intelligently argue that the Civil Rights Act would have won a national popular vote election the year it was enacted or anytime time reasonably soon after.

Quote: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.

You're very likely wrong.  As recently as 2008 CA rejected same sex marriage by 600,000 votes.  We're talking about the most liberal state in the nation.  Same sex marriage is the Trump of issue voting, people aren't honest about it when polled.  I say this as someone who has supported same sex marriage since before I came of voting age in 1992.

Quote: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?

I am saying that the leader of the United States is the leader of all fifty states.  That being the case all fifty states should have their say in this appointment.  A popular vote eliminates states altogether, which seems rather antithetical for a country called the United States.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-03-2019, 05:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 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.

Which is why I used the word "essentially" instead of "literally".

(04-03-2019, 05:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There is no inequality on the state races.  Each vote counts exactly the same.

This doesn't change the uselessness of the vote in an overwhelmingly partisan state.

Quote: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.

No, they say it because it is exactly that, useless.  Polarized states exist.  Voters of the opposition party in those states will not prevail and the issues they are most concerned with will be given less to zero consideration.

Quote: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.

Hence your living in the United States.  Many, if not most, issues are decided at the state level.  You're essentially stating that our state based system of government needs to be replaced so that the whole country can have a say in what each state wants or does.

(04-03-2019, 05:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You seem to be speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

I'd rather disagree but do go on.

Quote: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?

They allowed autonomy from those they deemed worthy of having it.  An elitist view to be sure.  I am not saying the EC has become exactly what the Framers envisioned, but it has fulfilled a role they clearly embraced; preventing the tyranny of the majority.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-03-2019, 06:22 PM)hollodero Wrote: 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.

The Framers recognized that this nation was a federation of states that should be treated with, and accorded, equal status despite economic or population differences.  It is a coalition of equals even when they are not equals. The Senate is one function of this, the EC has become another.  Making the POTUS election a strictly national vote issue eliminates the say of the states in who ultimately governs them.  This seems in direct contradiction to the intended purpose of the United States Constitution and the intention of the Framers. 

Quote: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?

Except they aren't, because EC votes are determined by HoR numbers of Representatives plus Senate members.  Given that every state gets two senators, after that their EC votes are entirely determined by HoR representation.  If you think this is inherently unfair then you are arguing for the dismantling of the entire system of US governance.

Quote: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? 

Your low turnout argument is, by far, the best argument against the EC in this thread.  I quite agree, a GOP voter in a deep blue state or vice versa, is far less likely to go to the polls and help decide other issue on the ballot.  That being said, I still think the EC strikes the best balance between honoring population numbers and ensuring every state has a voice in the election of the POTUS.

[GMDino]

(04-03-2019, 07:58 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sorry, but the fact that the Dems ignore the rural areas is not a very good argument for abolishing the EC.  It would only give them more incentive, if any was needed, to give them less attention.  Also, a party ignoring large swathes of the country is not a good thing.  As blue as CA is the GOP has not abandoned it.  



Which, again, is exactly what happens on state level elections.  I don't understand why it's ok for this to happen at the state level, "because at least your vote is counted", and not at the federal.  Also, the EC doesn't reduce an entire nation's votes to 10 states, that's just how it often breaks down.  Honestly, the fact that there are so few "swing" states should concern you far more than the EC does.




Neither was I, but I can read books and watch documentaries.  I don't think anyone can intelligently argue that the Civil Rights Act would have won a national popular vote election the year it was enacted or anytime time reasonably soon after.





You're very likely wrong.  As recently as 2008 CA rejected same sex marriage by 600,000 votes.  We're talking about the most liberal state in the nation.  Same sex marriage is the Trump of issue voting, people aren't honest about it when polled.  I say this as someone who has supported same sex marriage since before I came of voting age in 1992.


I am saying that the leader of the United States is the leader of all fifty states.  That being the case all fifty states should have their say in this appointment.  A popular vote eliminates states altogether, which seems rather antithetical for a country called the United States.

You guys are having a good back and forth but a couple quick things:

Even in 1963-64 the polling was about 50-50 on civil rights, even if white people didn't want even equal blacks in their neighborhoods.  That site also has a poll saying a lot of the opposition came from a fear of communism.  And this site has a poll showing support for civil rights was up to 58% so there wasn't much blow back at all.  To me that means it wasn't "strongly" opposed before either even if it was opposed.

Lots of other info on those two pages too.

That CA vote was over a decade ago.  Same sex marriage was okayed by the SC four years ago.  A decade is a long time.  Six years is a long time.

And it failed for a multiple of reasons that didn't all have to do with "liberal" versus "conservative according to this article which also has a breakdown of who/where/how the votes fell. That aside it was a one issue vote versus voting for the POTUS.

Lastly the President of the United states is also representing all the citizens...not just the states that wanted him.  That's my only beef with that argument.  We let individuals vote for their state leaders and they should also vote for their federal leaders.  Each person counts equally whether they are in the country or the city.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-03-2019, 05:36 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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.

I completely agree that the EC now functions in a way not intended at its creation.  That being said I believe that it now functions in a way that directly reflects the intentions of the Framers.

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

I think we've descended into semantics here.  When I say rural I mean lower population centers.  Milwaukee is rural compared to LA or NYC.  Long Beach has close to as many residents as Milwaukee.

Quote: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.

I get that, but doesn't the motivation behind the Zeitgeist give you some measure of disquiet?

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

Not at the individual level, no.  At the state level, absolutely there is.

Quote: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.

Which, I think, is a good argument in favor of your expanding House membership numbers.  As a counter argument to the EC, I don't buy it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-03-2019, 08:20 PM)GMDino Wrote: You guys are having a good back and forth but a couple quick things:

Even in 1963-64 the polling was about 50-50 on civil rights, even if white people didn't want even equal blacks in their neighborhoods.  That site also has a poll saying a lot of the opposition came from a fear of communism.  And this site has a poll showing support for civil rights was up to 58% so there wasn't much blow back at all.  To me that means it wasn't "strongly" opposed before either even if it was opposed.

Lots of other info on those two pages too.

Thank you for the source, but did not the GOP win the presidency for five of the next six elections?

Quote:That CA vote was over a decade ago.  Same sex marriage was okayed by the SC four years ago.  A decade is a long time.  Six years is a long time.


And it failed for a multiple of reasons that didn't all have to do with "liberal" versus "conservative according to this article which also has a breakdown of who/where/how the votes fell. That aside it was a one issue vote versus voting for the POTUS.

I agree, attitudes definitely shift over time and ten years is a long time, especially in today's world.  That being said, I stand by my opinion that this is the Trump of issue voting, far more people say they are in favor than would actually vote in favor.  Even poll numbers on this issue are now backsliding.  

Quote:Secondly the President of the United states is also representing all the citizens...not just the states that wanted him.  That's my only beef with that argument.  We let individuals vote for their state leaders and they should also vote for their federal leaders.  Each person counts equally whether they are in the country or the city.

Except that we're the United States, not the United citizens.  I realize in responding to all these separate posters I am repeating myself in several instances, but the Framers acknowledged and emphasized the need to acknowledge states rights and their importance.  As stated above, this is a nation of states treated as equal even when they are not equal population or economic wise.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(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 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.  

I appreciate the support and compliment, especially as I am beset on all sides in this thread. 

I understand the arguments against the EC and I acknowledge that it has evolved into a system not initially intended or foreseen.  I fully believe that it has morphed into a system fully inline with the intentions of the framers based on their writings and beliefs.

[Dill]

(04-03-2019, 07:13 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Interesting, the second specific Founder that is brought up, and also one that advocated for a national popular vote for president.

LOL What's Madison's final word on the EC?   (Thinking here of his 1823 letter to George Hay.)

Madison also wanted the senate to be proportional representation as well. Didn't end up there, though.

[Belsnickel]

(04-03-2019, 08:41 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL What's Madison's final word on the EC?   (Thinking here of his 1823 letter to George Hay.)

That apportionment of Electors by district (my compromise solution) would be better than what was in place. He never really changed his position with that letter.

(04-03-2019, 08:41 PM)Dill Wrote: Madison also wanted the senate to be proportional representation as well. Didn't end up there, though.

Well, he was a Virginian.

[*bfine32*]

(04-03-2019, 09:09 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, he was a Virginian.

Dude's sexual experience should not matter

[Belsnickel]

(04-03-2019, 08:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I completely agree that the EC now functions in a way not intended at its creation.  That being said I believe that it now functions in a way that directly reflects the intentions of the Framers.

I would again have to disagree. The reason Madison didn't think the national popular vote would work? Slave states wouldn't be for it because it would take power away from them. That is the biggest reason this compromise solution was pushed forward. The other big reason is because the average voter would not know the presidential candidates, so there would be an indirect election. Those were the intentions, and those aren't an issue anymore.

(04-03-2019, 08:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think we've descended into semantics here.  When I say rural I mean lower population centers.  Milwaukee is rural compared to LA or NYC.  Long Beach has close to as many residents as Milwaukee.

That's not what rural means, though. I get that your perception is skewed, I deal with that all the time with students from NoVA, Jersey, and the like. But a small city can still be an urban center.

(04-03-2019, 08:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I get that, but doesn't the motivation behind the Zeitgeist give you some measure of disquiet?

Maybe it's because I'm involved in politics a bit too much, but no. I am willing to take advantage of momentum like this. A decade ago, the majority of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents wanted to get rid of the EC and it still hasn't happened yet. If this can help make it happen, I'm for it.

(04-03-2019, 08:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not at the individual level, no.  At the state level, absolutely there is.

If we're talking about election equity we're talking about the individual level. One person, one vote.

(04-03-2019, 08:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Which, I think, is a good argument in favor of your expanding House membership numbers.  As a counter argument to the EC, I don't buy it.

I think on this one, we would just have to disagree.

[hollodero]

(04-03-2019, 08:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The Framers recognized that this nation was a federation of states that should be treated with, and accorded, equal status despite economic or population differences.  It is a coalition of equals even when they are not equals. The Senate is one function of this, the EC has become another.  Making the POTUS election a strictly national vote issue eliminates the say of the states in who ultimately governs them.  This seems in direct contradiction to the intended purpose of the United States Constitution and the intention of the Framers. 

The EC doesn't effective make the states "equal despite population differences" though anyway. Because I feel that would have to mean every state gets the same amount of electors. Since that isn't the case, the principle doesn't seem to stand anyway?

(04-03-2019, 08:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Except they aren't, because EC votes are determined by HoR numbers of Representatives plus Senate members.  Given that every state gets two senators, after that their EC votes are entirely determined by HoR representation.  If you think this is inherently unfair then you are arguing for the dismantling of the entire system of US governance.

I don't feel I'm doing that - I sure would - but I don't think going with the popular vote for POTUS elections dismantles the entire system of governance. I don't see the compelling coherence there at all.
Now getting rid of the two senators per state, which I absolutely would deem more fair, possibly would do so. But I'm not arguing that, nor do I see it as a logical consequence of popular vote vs. EC for POTUS votes.

(04-03-2019, 08:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Your low turnout argument is, by far, the best argument against the EC in this thread.  I quite agree, a GOP voter in a deep blue state or vice versa, is far less likely to go to the polls and help decide other issue on the ballot.  That being said, I still think the EC strikes the best balance between honoring population numbers and ensuring every state has a voice in the election of the POTUS.

And I'd still say the say of the people should count more in a federal POTUS election. Congress, OK that's different, I get that. Representatives from each state get voted for in the states, then get together in Washington and negotiate stuff. And smaller states are overrepresented, but I'm not suggesting changing that. But POTUS, as I see it, should be for all Americans and so every American vote should count equally in my understanding of a fair nationwide election (always putting aside how some Americans have no vote at all, which is still absurd). I get the points against it somehow, I'm just not convinced.

[BmorePat87]

(04-03-2019, 07:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.

I disagree. I've provided quantified evidence to show the arguments of "only a few population centers will be focused on" and "if we abandon the EC, that will cause many states to be ignored" hold no water. I appreciate your opinions, but until you have something to back it up with, I do not see how they can even begin to be considered as legitimate. 

Only 2 of the 10 smallest states were visited in 2016. New Hampshire is a swing states and got 21 visits. Maine awarded proportionally and got 3 visits... so as it stands, small states are ignored. Using the fact that Maine is actually visited because there's a chance to win PART of the population and votes, logic would suggest that moving towards either 1) a system with proportional allocation of electoral votes or 2) a popular vote would cause more than 2 of the 10 smallest states to get more visits.

Surprising no one, if you look at the next 5 smallest states, only Nebraska (proportional allocation) and New Mexico (potential swing state) had visits...

[Belsnickel]

(04-04-2019, 12:48 AM)hollodero Wrote: And I'd still say the say of the people should count more in a federal POTUS election. Congress, OK that's different, I get that. Representatives from each state get voted for in the states, then get together in Washington and negotiate stuff. And smaller states are overrepresented, but I'm not suggesting changing that. But POTUS, as I see it, should be for all Americans and so every American vote should count equally in my understanding of a fair nationwide election (always putting aside how some Americans have no vote at all, which is still absurd). I get the points against it somehow, I'm just not convinced.

I agree with you on this. I think where you're having trouble, and the reason debates around the Electoral College stall, is similar to a lot of differences between the US and the rest of the Western world. Democratic theory has evolved since the founding of this country. The Age of Enlightenment was a progressive movement at the time, but those ideas are now over 200 years old. A lot of Europe has continued that progress while the United States, because it is more conservative than most Western nations, has not moved on as significantly.

At the time, there was a split in the Convention over the election of president. Some wanted a national popular vote, some were skeptical of the abilities of the average citizen to make an informed vote and so it should be left to Congress. The Electoral College was a compromise. It wasn't ever about the states making the choice or allowing smaller states to have a say or anything like that. Federalist No. 68, Hamilton's defense of the system, doesn't talk about that. It was because they didn't trust the American people to make a good choice due to lack of information.

Direct election, citizens having their say directly, is a more progressive position in democratic theory. While the rest of the developed world has moved on, the United States in its more conservative way has struggled with this. Democratic theory has left the United States behind.

We still argue about a mechanism that is severely outdated that was placed in the Constitution 230 years ago. Jefferson, one of the more progressive minded Framers, argued for a mechanism to be put in place that every 20 years the Constitution would be changed, updated for the times. There is little doubt in my mind that any of the Framers, were they to see the changes in the flows of information and the way democratic theory has evolved, would be baffled by our adherence to their compromise solution.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-03-2019, 06:50 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: At the very least, it should be proportional as you two are suggestion.



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. 

I don't think the campaign events in Iowa and New Hampshire have anything to do with the EC.  Those events are because of the primaries.  

[BmorePat87]

(04-04-2019, 08:52 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't think the campaign events in Iowa and New Hampshire have anything to do with the EC.  Those events are because of the primaries.  

No, the data I was using was solely general election. You can see the breakdown by dates here

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


Iowa had 21 visits between the last week of July and the first week of November...

[*michaelsean*]

(04-04-2019, 08:56 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: No, the data I was using was solely general election. You can see the breakdown by dates here

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


Iowa had 21 visits between the last week of July and the first week of November...

Nobody likes a know it all who isn't (aren't?) themselves.  

[Dill]

(04-03-2019, 08:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I appreciate the support and compliment, especially as I am beset on all sides in this thread. 

I understand the arguments against the EC and I acknowledge that it has evolved into a system not initially intended or foreseen.  I fully believe that it has morphed into a system fully inline with the intentions of the framers based on their writings and beliefs.

Lol hang in there. I have been swamped in work the last 24 hrs. Hopefully can provide some cover fire today.

Our countrymen have lost their mooring in the Constitution, probably the influence of foreign ideas.

[Belsnickel]

(04-04-2019, 10:24 AM)Dill Wrote: Lol hang in there. I have been swamped in work the last 24 hrs. Hopefully can provide some cover fire today.

Our countrymen have lost their mooring in the Constitution, probably the influence of foreign ideas.

Well, I'm also a radical that thinks we need to craft a new constitution. So there is that.

[Dill]

(04-04-2019, 10:51 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, I'm also a radical that thinks we need to craft a new constitution. So there is that.

Hollo has an excuse: he grew up in Central Europe, the over-regulated cradle of European socialism.

But you are breathing the free air of Madison's and Jefferson's Virginia.  No excuse for ignoring the role of individual states in our federal system.

I think some of our list friends have all along been thinking we're the UVA--United Voters of America--rather than the U.S.A.

In your last post to me you approved Madison's notion of Electors elected from districts.  So you are not against the EC, just want to reform it? Willing to compromise?
Have I understood you?