Electoral College should be abolished. And here's why...

[Subduction Zone]

There's a way to do this without multiple voting days.
Voters rate all the candidates, in order of preference. If no candidate gets a majority of top ratings, the voters who rated them second choice get added to the totals. If there's still not a candidate with a majority, you add all the votes that rated them third.

There's other ways of doing this that are similar.

I'd still advocate for a parliamentary system, where the top position is chosen by a coalition of smaller groups that reach a workable consensus.
Tom

What? Are you suggesting that they work together? Like adults!?

 

[shmogie]

I've heard plenty of arguments in support of the Electoral College including the claims that NY and CA would determine every election and that small red flyover states are protected and given a voice equal to the large blue coastal states. I'm going to respond to those claims in the course of this post.

Let me take a moment before I continue to lay out a few facts:
I did not vote for Hillary.
I did not vote for Trump.
I did not develop this position as a result of either the 2000 or 2016 elections.

The Electoral College portions out electors according to population but asks the people to participate by voting for which party's electors should go to the EC on their state's behalf. There's a great deal of trouble with this, largely stemming from the facts that voter turnout is inconsistent and that 48 states plus DC use winner take all. As a result, a small number of people in a very populous state gets control over the whole population of that state, and it silences the voice of most voters in the country. This sounds contrary to the claims made by those who support the EC. It is. I'll expand on that in a bit.

There are two conditions that must be met for me to tolerate the EC.
1. The people should be completely excluded from the general election of the President of the United States. As the constitution indicates, it's up to the state legislatures how to award their states' electors to the EC. The people already vote for their legislators. Using popular vote elections, BTW.
2. The Census taken every 10 years should only count citizens.

Failing those two conditions, the EC should be abolished. And here's why.

Let's just stick to California for a moment.

8.7 million Californians voted for Clinton in 2016. But the EC isn't really concerned about that. 4,483,810 Californians voted for Trump. Which puts all 55 electors in the hands of 4,483,811 Clinton voters. (For those who need it spelled out of them, that's Trump votes + 1, the minimum requirement to win the state's electors)

4,483,811 Californians. That number represents:
- Approx half of the number of Californians who voted for Clinton.
- Almost one third of the number of Californians who voted at all.
- Just over 11% of California's population.
- 3.3% of the total US popular vote for President.

Get that? The EC gave 3.3% of the total US popular vote control over 10.2% of the whole freaking election.

Let's expand that to all Californian Clinton votes. That is still only 6.4% of the total US popular vote, compared to 10.2% of the total electoral vote.

The states only get smaller from there. What kind of voice is left for the people in small red states when the whole population of several of those states is swallowed up by that 3.8% gap of phantom voters? And this is still just California!

Let's look at the three big blue states. California, New York, and Illinois.

In 2016, Clinton voters from all three states combined for 12% of the total US popular vote.

All three states combine for 19.3% of the total electoral vote.

Now we're up to a 7.3% gap between real votes and the real power of these states, making small red states even MORE insignificant.

And the worst part is, the small states whose voices are being made mute are being told that the EC is protecting them and making their voices louder!

If I take away the swing states that voted for Trump (except Iowa because it's small), as well as red states with 10 or more electors, the 18 small red states that are left combine for 100 electors. 4 fewer electors than just the three big blue states. This means that it takes 1/3rd of this country's states just to almost balance out the big three blue states. Which means they don't matter. They're a given. Then a handful of reliably blue medium states cancel out a handful of reliably red medium states... which leaves us with less than 1/3rd of the states in this country to decide the election. And if we're being thorough and candid, the difference between Trump and Clinton was three swing states.

The EC makes it so much harder for red states to fight against a small number of blue states for no good reason.

A real direct popular vote (not this National Popular Vote Compact crap) would mean that literally every vote would count. We wouldn't be counting states against states. Red votes in California and blue votes in Texas would actually matter. Candidates would have to visit every state instead of only visiting dozen or fewer swing states. No more of this race to 270. You wouldn't even know who won until literally every vote was counted, because you wouldn't know how many total votes there are until every single vote was counted. WHICH MEANS THAT EVERY VOTE COUNTS!

This would be an incentive for more people to get out and vote because more people's votes would matter. It would also give states an incentive to crack down on voter fraud because accuracy would matter when the country cares about more than just a dozen or fewer swing states.

For at least a couple of elections, the pendulum would likely swing to the right. Then the system would balance itself out, and both sides would truly have a fair chance.

(All my numbers are based on New York Times 2016 election results)

If you want to offer a disagreement, all I ask is that you refrain from repeating slogans and unsupported talking points, and instead offer some sort of support for your claim.

And another thing. Those on the left who are likely to oppose the Electoral College, don't chime in with the "it's the only way republicans can win" nonsense. 11 of the last 13 Republican presidents were able to win the popular vote just fine.

Your entire premise is flawed because you apparently believe that the United States is a democracy, where Presidential elections are determined by the sum total of individual votes, and the winner is determined by the vote count of these individual votes.

The Founders despised democracies, for very good reason.

The United States is a Constitutional representative Republic, where the states select the President, not the individual voter.

The electors are selected to represent the peoples wishes in their state.

It is patently obvious that if an individual vote system were adopted, huge voting blocks in urban areas in a few states could drown out the voices of all the people in other states. Orange county in the peoples republik of kalifornia has a greater population than many states.

As the American electorate gets more and more polarized, the cities of New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Seattle, safely in the democrat stable, could essentially elect the President.

The point is moot though.

It is the states who must decide on the matter, through the Constitutional amendment process, again, the states decide, not individual voters. It would not happen.

Further, there is one other way to enact the voting system you envision, a Convention of the States, something that has never occurred. It too must be created by the states, not by individual votes

The Founders knew exactly what they were doing and why they were doing it.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Your entire premise is flawed because you apparently believe that the United States is a democracy, where Presidential elections are determined by the sum total of individual votes, and the winner is determined by the vote count of these individual votes.

wrong. I would be content, as I said before, for the people to be removed from the process altogether, and let the state legislatures decide which electors get to cast their vote for President. But if, and only if, the Census only counted citizens.

The United States is a Constitutional representative Republic, where the states select the President, not the individual voter.

then remove the individual voter from the process. Let the states do their job without wasting my time.

The electors are selected to represent the peoples wishes in their state.

Not really. Not as long as we have winner take all and no minimum for voter turnout.

It is patently obvious that if an individual vote system were adopted, huge voting blocks in urban areas in a few states could drown out the voices of all the people in other states. Orange county in the peoples republik of kalifornia has a greater population than many states.

The bulk of my original post refutes this. Don't hide behind phrases like "patently obvious". Show your work. Provide even just a little bit of evidence to support the idea that populous states like California would have more power without the Electoral College.

As the American electorate gets more and more polarized, the cities of New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Seattle, safely in the democrat stable, could essentially elect the President.

no, they couldn't. If you think I'm wrong about that, I invite you to support your claim.

It is the states who must decide on the matter, through the Constitutional amendment process, again, the states decide, not individual voters. It would not happen.

If the red states woke up and realized they are being taken advantage of, it could happen.

The Founders knew exactly what they were doing and why they were doing it.

The founders saw several elections where many states didn't have their people participate AT ALL in the general election. I wouldn't mind going back to that.

 

[PureX]

So no minority should have a voice then?

Everyone who votes has a "voice", and a say in who gets elected. Then, whomever gets the most votes gets the job of representing ALL the people in his/her district (this should be kept in kind when we choose who we vote for ... that their job is to represent everyone, and not just ourselves and our like-minded cronies).

As it stands, now, a vote in California is only worth 2/3rds what a vote in Utah is worth. And all of the votes in some states can be completely ignored by the electoral representatives of that state, if they so choose, and so are essentially worthless. They are just "show" votes, with no actual influence on who that state's electoral representatives propose to be president. And the citizens don't get to elect those electoral representatives, either! They're just appointed cronies of the state's current politicians. This is all fundamentally undemocratic.

And even before all this cheating of the democratic in the presidential election process happens, there are the primary elections, in which, for democrats, at least, NO ONE'S VOTE COUNTS. The popular vote in the democratic primary is completely meaningless, as the democratic party bosses have total authority to chose who the democratic candidate for president will be. The voters have no actual say, at all.

 

[Poisonshady313]

The issue is not so much the Electoral College. The issue is states and how Americans traditionally relate to the concept. Ideologically, most Americans appear to want to have each state be unique, individual entities with as much independence and autonomy as is practical within the framework of the United States.

We also have a concept known as States Rights which some people view as more important than individual human rights. (Oddly enough, most of those who support States Rights do not extend that concept to include county rights or municipality rights.) This is why we also have a US Senate, with each state having two senators so each state has equal representation within the Senate.

In other words, any move to eliminate the Electoral College would require that Americans re-examine the entire concept of States and States Rights. Should states have any autonomy at all? Should there be a Senate? Should government be more centralized and state governments weakened? Would it be more efficient and practical to do so?

What practical function do States Rights actually serve?

Pump the brakes there, chief. None of that is at stake. I'm not asking to alter the structure of our government. This isn't a question about states rights.

All I'm asking for is a change in the way we elect our President.

 

[Enoch07]

Everyone who votes has a "voice", and a say in who gets elected.

Yes that's the way it is currently with the EC.

Without it there is no voice.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Yes that's the way it is currently with the EC.

Without it there is no voice.

Incorrect.

 

[Poisonshady313]

What you seem to be saying is that it's fair because the position is shared by both parties almost evenly.
What the OP seems to be saying is that it's not fair because the method makes it possible for the rule of the minority.

What I'm saying is, the Electoral College is unfair because it takes away the voice of most of the people in this country.

The Electoral College is the direct opposite of everything Electoral College supporters say it is.

It does NOT make candidates care about the whole country.
It does NOT make candidates care about small states.
It does NOT prevent New York and California from deciding every election.

 

[Stevicus]

Pump the brakes there, chief. None of that is at stake. I'm not asking to alter the structure of our government. This isn't a question about states rights.

All I'm asking for is a change in the way we elect our President.

Yes, but the way we elect our president is due to the very issues I pointed out. There are many good reasons one might cite to support abolishing the Electoral College, but the reasons for doing so indicate that the original justifications for having the EC in the first place may not be relevant in today's society. It may not necessarily mean that it would happen right now, but it's a question society will have to address sooner or later anyway.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Yes, but the way we elect our president is due to the very issues I pointed out. There are many good reasons one might cite to support abolishing the Electoral College, but the reasons for doing so indicate that the original justifications for having the EC in the first place may not be relevant in today's society. It may not necessarily mean that it would happen right now, but it's a question society will have to address sooner or later anyway.

Earlier you said "In other words, any move to eliminate the Electoral College would require that Americans re-examine the entire concept of States and States Rights."

My questions are:
Why?
What does one have to do with the other?

 

[Stevicus]

Earlier you said "In other words, any move to eliminate the Electoral College would require that Americans re-examine the entire concept of States and States Rights."

My questions are:
Why?
What does one have to do with the other?

Why do you think we created the Electoral College in the first place? Answer that question, and perhaps you'll see what one has to do with the other.

 

[columbus]

There are many good reasons one might cite to support abolishing the Electoral College, but the reasons for doing so indicate that the original justifications for having the EC in the first place may not be relevant in today's society.

Dang, I could write a whole essay about this.
The bottom line is that the 21st century USA is vastly different from the USA of the Founding Fathers, in a multitude of ways.

Let me hammer on just one major point.

Back then, the president had almost nothing to do with the daily lives of the majority of people. The states were far more sovereign and pretty much ran all their own internal affairs individually. The president was tasked with representing the state governments to foreign powers. In day to day affairs, the federal government had little influence, or need of it.

All that's changed giganticly since then. States are really just provinces now, and the federal government dominates on most things. Think about the three biggest issues in the 2016 election, taxes and health care and immigration. None of those even existed back then. The president had nothing to say about them.

The president didn't represent the people, he represented the state governments. So, the state governments picked the people who the legislatures felt would best represent their interests, and sent them off to the Electoral College. Those representatives hashed out the best choice and made a decision. But there was no popular election involved, nor was there a reason for one.

It may not necessarily mean that it would happen right now, but it's a question society will have to address sooner or later anyway.

Actually, there's already a huge effort to democratize America. According to the Constitution, state legislatures can choose Electoral College delegates however they choose. When states representing 270 EC votes decide to require their delegates to vote for the popular vote winner, the USA will be a democracy.
Check this out. It's a little closer than you might realize.
National Popular Vote

Tom

 

[Stevicus]

Dang, I could write a whole essay about this.
The bottom line is that the 21st century USA is vastly different from the USA of the Founding Fathers, in a multitude of ways.

Let me hammer on just one major point.

Back then, the president had almost nothing to do with the daily lives of the majority of people. The states were far more sovereign and pretty much ran all their own internal affairs individually. The president was tasked with representing the state governments to foreign powers. In day to day affairs, the federal government had little influence, or need of it.

All that's changed giganticly since then. States are really just provinces now, and the federal government dominates on most things. Think about the three biggest issues in the 2016 election, taxes and health care and immigration. None of those even existed back then. The president had nothing to say about them.

The president didn't represent the people, he represented the state governments. So, the state governments picked the people who the legislatures felt would best represent their interests, and sent them off to the Electoral College. Those representatives hashed out the best choice and made a decision. But there was no popular election involved, nor was there a reason for one.


Actually, there's already a huge effort to democratize America. According to the Constitution, state legislatures can choose Electoral College delegates however they choose. When states representing 270 EC votes decide to require their delegates to vote for the popular vote winner, the USA will be a democracy.
Check this out. It's a little closer than you might realize.
National Popular Vote

Tom

Well, it sounds promising. Another way to democratize things and still keep the EC is to remove the "winner take all" provision. Make the electoral votes proportional to the vote count in each state. That would solve some of the issues without necessarily doing away with the EC altogether.

But you're right. The actual Office of the President has expanded greatly in its size, scope, and overall importance - and the role of the state governments has also changed immensely.

In principle, I agree with the basic premise of states rights as it relates to self-rule, but I would extend the same concept to even lower levels of government - counties, municipalities, villages, etc.

I've noticed that, in the states where states' rights has its staunchest advocates, they still favor a strong central government for the state, with the county and city governments being nothing more than vassals.

That's where the states' rights view can get contradictory, since it's seemingly okay to give most political power to state governments, while keeping it out of the hands of the Federal government. But then, the whole reason the Feds had to interfere in the first place was precisely because too much power was being granted to the state governments and not distributed evenly among the local governments.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Why do you think we created the Electoral College in the first place? Answer that question, and perhaps you'll see what one has to do with the other.

I've heard the talking points. None of them point to why you said what you said. Or maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps you'll be so kind as to point out how I'm wrong by answering my question. What does one have to do with the other?

Let me try a different approach:

"Should states have any autonomy at all?"

What does a direct national popular vote for President of the United States have anything to do with states having or not having autonomy?

"Should there be a Senate?"
What does a direct national popular vote for President of the United States have anything to do with whether or not there should be a Senate?

"Should government be more centralized and state governments weakened?"
What does a direct national popular vote for President of the United States have anything to do with whether or not the government should be more centralized?

 

[Stevicus]

I've heard the talking points. None of them point to why you said what you said. Or maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps you'll be so kind as to point out how I'm wrong by answering my question. What does one have to do with the other?

Let me try a different approach:

"Should states have any autonomy at all?"

What does a direct national popular vote for President of the United States have anything to do with states having or not having autonomy?

"Should there be a Senate?"
What does a direct national popular vote for President of the United States have anything to do with whether or not there should be a Senate?

"Should government be more centralized and state governments weakened?"
What does a direct national popular vote for President of the United States have anything to do with whether or not the government should be more centralized?

All of this has to do with America and how Americans view their government, the role of state governments vs. the federal government, and the expanded role of the president in this day and age.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your basic point about why the Electoral College should be abolished, but I don't see how the underlying issue can be confined to the neat little box you're to confine it to. You say that one has nothing to do with the other, but it all has to do with how we choose to govern ourselves in these United States.

If you can't see the connection or the bigger picture of how issues relate to each other, then I'm sorry, but when you ask what does one have to do with the other, I'm not sure what you're really asking for. Nor am I clear as to why you're asking.

 

[Poisonshady313]

All of this has to do with America and how Americans view their government, the role of state governments vs. the federal government, and the expanded role of the president in this day and age.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your basic point about why the Electoral College should be abolished, but I don't see how the underlying issue can be confined to the neat little box you're to confine it to. You say that one has nothing to do with the other, but it all has to do with how we choose to govern ourselves in these United States.

If you can't see the connection or the bigger picture of how issues relate to each other, then I'm sorry, but when you ask what does one have to do with the other, I'm not sure what you're really asking for. Nor am I clear as to why you're asking.

The Electoral College is a temporary group of individuals we vote for every 4 years for the singular purpose of electing the President of the United States.

I'm saying that rather than have 4.5 million Californians decide which 55 electors (who represent 40 million Californians) will represent them to elect our president, we ought to let the voters elect the President directly. This way, the other states have to contend with 12-18 million Californians who won't all vote the same way. Hell, they probably won't even all vote at all. Instead of contending with 40 million Californians all voting the same way, even though 40 million Californians aren't eligible to vote.

Seeing as neither method of electing the President affects or is affected by Congress, how this relates to whether or not we ought to continue having a Senate is a question I'm waiting for you to answer.

 

[PureX]

Yes that's the way it is currently with the EC.

Without it there is no voice.

No, it's not. And I explained why, but apparently you're just going to ignore that, so there's no point in my responding further.

 

[Enoch07]

No, it's not. And I explained why, but apparently you're just going to ignore that, so there's no point in my responding further.

Meh have it your way then. The EC isn't going anywhere anyways.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It appears that only the Trumpettes like the EC. Probably because that is the only chance that loser has. It has nothing to do with "states rights". That is a non sequitur that simply "will not hunt". What the EC does is to give excessive power to larger swing states. Low population states still have very little power and are largely ignored.

 

[Stevicus]

The Electoral College is a temporary group of individuals we vote for every 4 years for the singular purpose of electing the President of the United States.

I'm saying that rather than have 4.5 million Californians decide which 55 electors (who represent 40 million Californians) will represent them to elect our president, we ought to let the voters elect the President directly. This way, the other states have to contend with 12-18 million Californians who won't all vote the same way. Hell, they probably won't even all vote at all. Instead of contending with 40 million Californians all voting the same way, even though 40 million Californians aren't eligible to vote.

Seeing as neither method of electing the President affects or is affected by Congress, how this relates to whether or not we ought to continue having a Senate is a question I'm waiting for you to answer.

It has to do with the perceptions you're outlining here. In your scenario, it's still ostensibly important whether these millions are Californians - as opposed to being Iowans, Nebraskans, Delawareans, or whatever. Why do these designations even matter? Why are they important?

If state designations are not important (or no more significant than county delineations), then why bother with a Senate? What's the point in having one, if states and their governments have no real significance or meaning in the democratic process?

As to how it relates - we're talking about states here: The identity and role of states in US history and our political culture.