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

[Belsnickel]

(04-09-2019, 07:42 PM)Dill Wrote: My reference to large and small states was not about defending the House contingency plan; it was to note how that plan was a response to a very specific pressure.

Whether those "needs" still exist is, I guess, what this thread-debate is about.

This discussion has been going pretty well, I think. At this point we can go back over what has already been written and get a better idea of where we really do and do not disagree, and the grounds of our disagreement.

The central issue now, as I see it, is whether the electoral college is in any way structurally embedded in our political system such that it cannot be eradicated without 1) changing the nature of system--specifically its constitution as "two governments," and 2) altering the current balance of power between large and small states.

I am of the mind that getting rid of the EC will do both.  This is not generally a "leftist" position; I hold it because, like many people who grew up in big (geographically) states with small populations, I worry about how little power such states have vis a vis the federal government. I don't think of states as part of the U.S. government. And I am concerned that state power has been eroded on a number of fronts--most recently regarding Montana, by the Citizen's United decision which overturned Montana's Corrupt Practices Act of 1912, which forbid corporate funding of political campaigns.  Montana had that act because its people took control of their state AWAY from corporations. The motivations for the act, and the legal precedents, came from other then-small states like Oregon and Nebraska, whose citizens could not be stuck into the proverbial corporate pocket. https://freespeechforpeople.org/wp-content/uploads/archive/FSFP%20release%20on%20MT%20ruling%20123011.pdf

My concern is that the system of states is a counter weight to the federal gov. especially when they can act together with common interests.  State land is state land, and not government land. And the EC gives them a bit more weight than the otherwise would have, when facing down big-staters who think it only makes sense that Montana's coal and forests belong to "the nation."

So I am wondering what others think of this. I guess SSF is on my side here--though he comes from the biggest, most liberal state in the universe. Why doesn't he see direct popular vote as a big advantage? Then there is Bpat, who comes from little MD, but is ok siding with the big-state bullies .   And Bels, staunch defender of big government .  And all the rest. Can we examine this without referring to Trump--just looking at principles or "what is right" for everyone?  Who else has something to say? 

I think the first counterargument to my position might be that, could the Federal gov. not trump state laws, we would still have segregation. This is a substantive, not a procedural objection, though.  One could as easily argue we had segregation in the first place because a supreme court decision backed it.

I don't think ridding ourselves of the EC and moving to a direct, national popular vote would infringe upon the idea of "two governments." We aren't talking about moving towards a parliamentary system. In fact, by making the position not dependent on the EC, which is based on Congressional apportionment to get its numbers, it makes it more likely that the executive and the legislature will have less in common. It would also effectively remove Congress from any potential decision making with regards to president as the likelihood of a tie would become extremely slim.

Your other concern with regards to the balance between large and small states is something I see as misplaced with the office. As the Madison quote Pat used implies, the president is an official of the people, not the states. It is a simpler way of stating my point in several places within this thread that the president is not a leader of the states. The office is to head an executive branch and is not a chief governor. The states should, and do, have representation in the legislature but if there is any branch that is about the federal government being the big central government and representing the people as a whole and not the states, it is the executive.

This is not to dismiss the importance of the states as a counterweight to the federal government. I am more of a proponent of states' rights than most would realize, preferring my bigger government ideals being done at the lowest level possible rather than at the federal level. However, this is why Congress is the most important branch, why it was listed first. Their role as a check on the president is huge. One of their most important roles is oversight of the executive. I know they have been falling down on the job as of late, but apart from passing our laws, that is their biggest job and that is where the power of the people in their respective states remains a counterweight to an overreaching federal government.