Down with Electoral College, Up with People

[metis]

Frankly, I'd rather that we have the parliamentary system.

 

[BSM1]

Another variety of illusion of choice.

Exactly. But that is a two-sided coin.

 

[Nous]

If the election hinged entirely on the popular vote then two disturbing scenarios come to mind. One, a candidate would only have to win a few of the most populous states,

That's what happens (or can happen) under the Electoral College method.

It's so ironic that you are citing the problems that occur with the Electoral College system, and transferring them to national popular vote.

This brings up the second scenario. Supposing the candidate was a very charismatic, blatant White Supremacist, or a religioso of any stripe calling for the establishment of a theocracy. This candidate could conceivably win by one vote. Flooding the polls with his, or her, peeps could give him the winning ticket.

Electing the President by national popular vote does not make it any more likely that some "blatant White Supremacist, or a religioso" could win the office, nor cancel out Congress's powers.

The Electoral College has never change a popular election result since the Founding Fathers

Come again? Are you denying the 4 elections where the Electoral College put into office the candidate who did not win the popular vote?

The fact is that any non-landslide election--which most are these days--is likely to have put the "wrong" candidate in office, due to the effect on voters who know the outcome of the race in their own states and just don't bother to vote.

 

[Nous]

. . . getting the groundswell of support needed to get rid of the electoral college is near on impossible. It's certainly not going to happen anytime soon.... if at all.

What do you say is happening with the NPVC? It will effectively "get rid of" the Electoral College system. And it certainly looks to me that it will soon acquire enough states to become binding. There is nearly supermajority support for electing the President by national popular vote.

 

[Nous]

The EC is without question the only thing that has kept this country from going down the path of radicalism.

What do you mean? What is "radicalism," and how did the Electoral College system of electing the President prevent it?

The EC also gives the wee'st of states a voice.

Under the Electoral College system, individuals in larger states enjoy greater a priori voting power.

It is merely the vagaries of apportionment--where an electoral vote represents fewer than a million persons in some states, and several million in other states--that gives a smaller state greater voting power in relation to its share of the US population. This apportionment advantage of small states is mostly overwhelmed by larger states’ greater a priori (absolute Banzhaf) voting power in relation to its share of electoral votes. See Table 1: http://userpages.umbc.edu/~nmiller/RESEARCH/VP&EC.pdf It is this greater absolute Banzhaf voting power of larger states that is key in providing individuals in larger states with greater voting power in the two-tiered system that the Electoral College method creates. See Table 2. The Electoral College method not only creates inequalities in individual voting power, it reduces individual voting power compared to that of direct popular election:

As Miller makes clear: “Direct popular election of the President uniquely maximizes and equalizes individual voting power.” (My emphasis)

 

[Nous]

Frankly, I'd rather that we have the parliamentary system.

I might agree, but there is a much smaller probability of that happening than of the NPVC becoming binding.

(Good to see you, BTW. I recognize that silly outfit anywhere.)

 

[Nietzsche]

What do you mean? What is "radicalism," and how did the Electoral College system of electing the President prevent it?

The EC acts as a long-term "buffer" of sorts. Pure mob rule cannot occur under this system, ensuring that any sort of movement from one end of the spectrum to the other is done at a far slower pace. It makes the parties temper their platforms, or risk alienating massive swathes of the College.

This is a cartogram of US States by population-

This is one of the Electoral College-

Notice how they are actually surprisingly complimentary of each other, but more importantly notice how the smaller states(specifically Alaska and the Flyover States) carry more weight relative to their population.

 

[Nietzsche]

Frankly, I'd rather that we have the parliamentary system.

I'd like a Parliamentary system too. Perhaps with the Supreme Court acting as a House of Lords.

 

[metis]

I might agree, but there is a much smaller probability of that happening than of the NPVC becoming binding.

(Good to see you, BTW. I recognize that silly outfit anywhere.)

Nice seeing you as well, but you can go to hell for criticizing my outfit.

.

 

[McBell]

The method of electing the US President by a body of electors acting on behalf of each state was primarily motivated by the 1787 Convention delegates’ lack of trust that the general population of voters would be adequately informed of federal issues to elect a capable President....

Yeppers.
Sad that 228 years later they are still right...

 

[Nous]

The EC acts as a long-term "buffer" of sorts. Pure mob rule cannot occur under this system, ensuring that any sort of movement from one end of the spectrum to the other is done at a far slower pace. It makes the parties temper their platforms, or risk alienating massive swathes of the College.

What? You’re only making up nonsense here. The Electoral College doesn’t somehow constrain which candidates will run or will be nominated by a party, nor which candidates individual voters will vote for. The general population of voters of each jurisdiction (states, or districts in Maine and Nebraska) determines for which candidate the electors’ votes will be cast.

See: Myths about Mob Rule, Demagogues, and the Electoral College Buffering against Popular Passions: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/answers/section.php?s=17 While you’re at it, read the NPV’s answers to the other common myths: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/answers.php

This is a cartogram of US States by population-

Notice how they are actually surprisingly complimentary of each other, but more importantly notice how the smaller states(specifically Alaska and the Flyover States) carry more weight relative to their population.

To whom or what does “they” in your sentence refer? And by what mechanism did the Electoral College supposedly create this “surprising complementarity”?

Again, the Electoral College merely creates an irrational two-tiered system of electing the President that reduces individual voting power, creates inequalities in voting power, and, in the process, generally provides individuals in larger states with greater a priori voting power in relation to the state’s share of electoral votes. Apparently either you didn’t read or didn’t understand the Miller paper above.

 

[Nous]

Yeppers.
Sad that 228 years later they are still right...

If it is true the the general population is too uninformed of federal issues to elect a President capable of dealing with federal issues (which I do not believe is true), the Electoral College obviously doesn't do anything to solve the problem.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yeppers.
Sad that 228 years later they are still right...

Agreed. Govt is still screwed up. ;0)

If it is true the the general population is too uninformed of federal issues to elect a President capable of dealing with federal issues (which I do not believe is true), the Electoral College obviously doesn't do anything to solve the problem.

I wonder when was the last time Goverment was actually regarded by the people as being competent and truly representative anywhere in the entire history of the US ?

 

[McBell]

If it is true the the general population is too uninformed of federal issues to elect a President capable of dealing with federal issues (which I do not believe is true), the Electoral College obviously doesn't do anything to solve the problem.

Don't get me wrong.
I am all for doing away with the Electoral College.
Seems a completely unnecessary step in the process.

 

[Nous]

I wonder when was the last time Goverment was actually regarded by the people as being competent and truly representative anywhere in the entire history of the US ?

I don't have a clue as to how to answer that, much less what the answer is. I’m certain many people regarded the government and the administration in office as incompetent even when George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were President.

 

[Nous]

Don't get me wrong.
I am all for doing away with the Electoral College.
Seems a completely unnecessary step in the process.

Thank you for saying that. As I noted in the OP, I think the most pernicious effect of the Electoral College method of electing the President is the vote-wasting that occurs with it, and/or the fact that it induces apathy (and maybe angst) among those people who live in states where they know that their vote cannot possibly help elect the candidate they support, even when the candidate could needs their votes. That has happened to me a couple of times. I lived in Texas during the Presidential elections of 2004 and 2008, and wanted desperately to help elect Obama in 2008 and anyone else but George Bush in 2004. But I knew that no matter how hard I pressed the button by the name of the candidate of my choice, my vote was going to be thrown away, thanks to the irrational method of electing the US President.

I also wonder if younger voters might be more susceptible to Electoral College-induced apathy or frustration, and simply not bother to vote when they know their vote cannot possibly help elect the candidate they support. Looking at the raw numbers of votes for candidates in past elections and seeing that the winner got, say, a million more votes than the loser, is really quite deceptive. A significantly larger percentage of voters in “battleground” states vote in Presidential elections. The NPVC will make the whole country the battleground, which is how it should be.

 

[esmith]

Let me ask you a simple question. How many times has a current version of the Electoral College has a candidate won the popular vote and lost? Simple answer 4
1824, John Quincy Adams won the popular vote, Electoral College was tied and the House of Representatives determined the winner Andrew Jackson
1876 Rutherford B. Hays
1888 Benjamin Harris
2000 George W. Bush

Now there were 2 versions of the Electoral College, the first only lasted through four elections. The second version had problems ( Jefferson vs Burr). Then the 12th Amendment (1804) gave rise to the current means of electing a President. Now, to eliminate the Electoral College will require amending the Constitution and that is problematic in itself. I do not see the Electoral College going away for many many years if ever.

 

[esmith]

That has happened to me a couple of times. I lived in Texas during the Presidential elections of 2004 and 2008, and wanted desperately to help elect Obama in 2008 and anyone else but George Bush in 2004. But I knew that no matter how hard I pressed the button by the name of the candidate of my choice, my vote was going to be thrown away, thanks to the irrational method of electing the US President.
.

No, it wasn't thrown away, I cancelled your vote and my wife cancelled another Obama vote.

 

[Nous]

Now, to eliminate the Electoral College will require amending the Constitution and that is problematic in itself.

The National Popular Vote Compact will effectively eliminate the Electoral College method of electing the President: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/index.php

Given how quickly the compact has already achieved 61% of the electoral votes needed to make it binding, I think it will quite likely be in effect for the 2020 election.

 

[Nous]

No, it wasn't thrown away, I cancelled your vote and my wife cancelled another Obama vote.

Actually, if it is true that you voted for McCain in Texas, then your vote was just one of the wasted votes for McCain.

There were ~1 million more Texans who voted for McCain than for Obama in 2008: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Texas,_2008 That’s ~1 million wasted votes for McCain. All McCain needed was 1 more than Obama got in order to get Texas’s 34 electoral votes.

But like I noted above, that’s a highly deceptive analysis. There were lots of Texans who would have voted for Obama but knew there wasn’t a chance that he would get Texas’s electoral votes, and they therefore didn’t bother voting at all. Likewise, there were lots of Texans who would have voted for McCain but knew that he was sure to win Texas, so they didn’t bother to vote. The Electoral College system skews elections by vote-wasting (which is one of the standard tricks for gerrymandering) and thereby induces apathy. That's why we need to circumvent that method with the NPVC.