The Electoral College

[PoetPhilosopher]

If you guys already understand this, sorry for bringing this up, but...

The popular vote is the voice of the people. Every vote counts. And big cities do have a lot of sway that way.

In the elector system, the state, not the people, tends to decide the President. And I'll explain how. The vast majority of states have a winner take all approach. Though the number of electoral votes seems to often reflect population, I'll give an example - 5 million and 1 people vote in Illinois. 2.5 million vote for Trump. 2.5 million and 1 vote for Biden. In this case, Biden get 20 electoral votes, meaning all of them, and Trump gets +0.

 

[Polymath257]

The cities are comprised of widely differing individuals. Cities are not hive-minds.

Nor, for that matter, do the rural areas. To think either is consistently on one side or another is rather to ignore reality.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

If we were to go by the "Popular Vote" those in the cities would be dictating the presidential elections forever. People in rural states would have no voice or vote of any value. Democracy has value, mob rule is dangerous.

Sure they would have a voice and vote: their political parties might have to recognize that their minority views shouldn't and won't get automatic implementation as they have for the past 240 or so years, and then they would have to adapt by offering alternatives that might actually appeal to a majority of the population...

 

[Salty Booger]

Well, the point is that the majority should rule. If the rural areas are outvoted, that is simply because there are fewer voters.

The cities may no represent the whole nation. But they do represent the *majority* of the nation.

Then you doom those of rural America to having no voice in any presidential election. You also give preference to those who live in urban areas. Again, pure democracy on a local level makes sense, but on a national level it is slanted.

 

[crossfire]

Nor, for that matter, do the rural areas. To think either is consistently on one side or another is rather to ignore reality.

Agreed.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

You are missing the point. Cities like New York, DC, LA, SF, Seattle, etc. would be deciding every presidential election if it were decided by popular vote. The major cities do not represent the whole nation.

Nor does the population of the rural areas represent the whole nation

 

[Salty Booger]

Nor, for that matter, do the rural areas. To think either is consistently on one side or another is rather to ignore reality.

Major cities generally lean left, whereas rural communities generally lean right.

 

[Polymath257]

Then you doom those of rural America to having no voice in any presidential election. You also give preference to those who live in urban areas. Again, pure democracy on a local level makes sense, but on a national level it is slanted.

On the contrary, a person outside of a city gets *exactly* the same voice as someone inside of a city.

The problem isn't a lack of voice. It is simply that they are outvoted on some issues. But, if they have fewer people, that is what *should* happen.

 

[Polymath257]

Major cities generally lean left, whereas rural communities generally lean right.

Currently. So?

Again, that simply means that a better argument from the right needs to be made in the cities.

Again, if the majority votes a particular way, that is NOT denying the minority a voice.

 

[Salty Booger]

How many times has there been a difference between the majority vote and the EC vote? And which direction has the EC gone each time?

Hopefully they vote per their constituents' will, but that has not always been the case.

 

[Salty Booger]

On the contrary, a person outside of a city gets *exactly* the same voice as someone inside of a city.

The problem isn't a lack of voice. It is simply that they are outvoted on some issues. But, if they have fewer people, that is what *should* happen.

I disagree. If we want an honest national election that values all communities (not just the costal cities), then we need to make concessions. I'm a city dweller on the Westcoast, btw.

 

[Salty Booger]

Again, that simply means that a better argument from the right needs to be made in the cities.

And then it begins. Why bother with the Midwest when all you need to do is campaign the big cities?

 

[Secret Chief]

The number of representatives is based on population, but every state gets two senators no matter what.

So states with relatively larger populations are possibly under-represented with senators (because the people's votes are worth less) and states with relatively smaller populations are possibly over-represented with senators (because the people's votes are worth more)...

?

 

[crossfire]

So states with relatively larger populations are possibly under-represented with senators (because the people's votes are worth less) and states with relatively smaller populations are possibly over-represented with senators (because the people's votes are worth more)...

?

That is exactly right, assuming everyone votes. If there is widespread voter apathy in a state, then the people who do vote carry greater weight. (I believe this is a major factor in localized voter suppression.)
Here's an article about it:
Whose votes count the least in the Electoral College?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If we were to go by the "Popular Vote" those in the cities would be dictating the presidential elections forever. People in rural states would have no voice or vote of any value. Democracy has value, mob rule is dangerous.

Side Note: I have been listening about the below video while chatting here...interesting. I post it here should anyone be curious.

This is refuted by the fact that even the largest city does not have a monolithic vote for one candidate. And this election demonstrated the importance of appealing to all people. Biden one the popular vote by about 3%. Rural areas are quite a bit more than 3% of the population. This claim is often made by supporters of the EC, but its validity vanishes when examined.

 

[tytlyf]

You don't see how the the cities would dominate the vote? Areas of higher populations shouldn't speak for the whole country. It is different when voting in a local election, but in a national election?

Yes, many civilized 1st-world nations do a national popular vote for president. The past 4 years the minority vote in this country dictated what the majority had to put up with.
The voter will decide the best president, it's up to the candidates to sell themselves and their mission.

 

[Ponder This]

I'm interested to hear people's thoughts on the value of the Electoral College.

I'm not a fan of it, and I feel that the popular vote should decide the outcome of a presidential election. In the 2016 election, Clinton actually had well over 2.8 million more votes than Trump, and had we not used the Electoral College, she would have been our president for the last four years.

What are your thoughts? What value, if any, do you find in its existence?

I think that the point of the electoral college is that the United States is a collection of states and that the most populated states have more representation.

Both pure representation by popular vote and pure representation by state are flawed. The electoral college is an attempt at a better representation of interests.

Why is representation by states flawed? Because some states have more people in them.
Why is representation by population flawed? Because people live in particular states. California is not like New York is not like Nebraska is not like etc.

It's value thus stems from the inadequacy of other systems.

 

[Dawnofhope]

You don't see how the the cities would dominate the vote? Areas of higher populations shouldn't speak for the whole country. It is different when voting in a local election, but in a national election?

The rural and urban communities are both essential to the wellbeing of the country. Whether living in an urban or rural region, there should the equality. People need to give greater attention to the character of whom they elect, and good character entails justice, equity and concern for all.

 

[dybmh]

What are your thoughts? What value, if any, do you find in its existence?

Less populated areas remain important to the candidates.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Really? Do those states electoral votes add up to 270?

They're the only ones that aren't entirely predictable.
Indiana goes red.
California goes blue.
Texas goes red.
New York goes blue.
This rarely changes. Most states are like this. Which means everyone in those states who vote opposite that trend, they very rarely have any sort of voice in the presidential election. It's a wasted vote, people know that and it disenfranchises them.