The Electoral College

[Secret Chief]

That is exactly right.
Here's an article about it:
Whose votes count the least in the Electoral College?

Insane. I can only imagine it causes resentment.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The State is an anachronism.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I see positives and negatives, but mostly by far negatives to the Electoral system.

It'd be hard on Republicans though in this modern day to have a popular vote system as I do see there as being a few more Democrats than Republicans. This means that us Democrats could potentially win more often. Trump would have never been elected by the popular vote. He hasn't won by popular vote.

But still, the popular vote would be good for us Democrats.

Well, there is something that the Republicans could do about their relative unpopularity compared to the Democrats -- they could work on their policy platform to make it appeal to more people.

What a notion -- who would have thought of it?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Well, there is something that the Republicans could do about their relative unpopularity compared to the Democrats -- they could work on their policy platform to make it appeal to more people.

What a notion -- who would have thought of it?

That's a good point too. There are enough undecided voters / swing voters to tip the scale either way.

 

[crossfire]

Insane. I can only imagine it causes resentment.

Oh yeah. In my state, some people in the less populated areas are expressing that they want some sort of electoral system for state elections, because they say that all of the statewide stuff is decided King County, where Seattle is. Some are quite upset that Governor Inslee won a third term, and chalk it up to King county deciding. (Ironically, Governor Inslee is originally from the less populated area of the state.)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

I would be in favor of a directly elected president/doing away with the EC, do change the House into a parliamentary system of proportionate representation. And instead of electing a prime minister the house would elect the vice president.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

And that can be seen the by campaign money invested in those states. I live in a very blue state, and the same would be true if I lived in a very red one. Neither candidate spent much in campaign funds or spent much time here at all. They spend almost all of their money and time in battleground states. That means that if anything those states have far more power than others do. The Electoral College has two consequences. Small states have excessive voting power and worse yet battleground states are far more likely to get their issues taken care of than states that have already settled on a side.

If we got rid of the EC candidates would have to try to woo all of the voters instead of just a few.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And that can be seen the by campaign money invested in those states. I live in a very blue state, and the same would be true if I lived in a very red one. Neither candidate spent much in campaign funds or spent much time here at all. They spend almost all of their money and time in battleground states. That means that if anything those states have far more power than others do. The Electoral College has two consequences. Small states have excessive voting power and worse yet battleground states are far more likely to get their issues taken care of than states that have already settled on a side.

If we got rid of the EC candidates would have to try to woo all of the voters instead of just a few.

Yup. They'd have to reach out to the West Coast, New England, the South, and Middle America. They typically don't do that because they don't have to do that, and if they do it's someone with massive drawing power like when Obama flipped Indiana in '08.

 

[sun rise]

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.

I agree.

Actually most of the time the electoral college has followed the popular vote with only a handful of times not being the case Electoral College vs. popular vote in the United States

As a Californian, I feel disenfranchised by the current system because my vote is unimportant whereas that in a handful of states counts.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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?

Its relatively unimportant compared to the unfairness of having only two parties. Larger states cannot complain that they lack influence in congress, because they are large and have more representatives. Once they end the electoral college will they also complain about an unfair number of senators? You bet they will. They'll continue to whittle away at the smaller states in favor of themselves, possibly even annexing land.

If eliminating it (electoral college) comes on a public referendum with ranked choice voting for president in all 50 states, I'll accept it; because then at least I'll be able to vote for more than one party. That would be something. Ending the electoral college is not helping anybody and is a distraction from the important issue.

 

[Polymath257]

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

How about making a coalition between urban and rural populations? Maybe change the way we divide our politics?

Why make it so that rural voters mean more than city voters? That's what it is now.

 

[Heyo]

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?

The US is a republic, i.e. a union of states. This is represented in the fact that the Senate has to cosign (some) bills coming from the house.
It is also represented in the fact that the number of EC votes are a mix of peoples and states voting power.
Therefore the EC is a good thing. I wouldn't abolish it.

But the EC needs serious reform.
First, all states should switch to proportional voting. First-behind-the-post practically disenfranchises "red" and "blue" states and gives undue importance to "swing" states. (I would even go so far as to allow the government of the states to name the two "Senate" voices.)
Second, the vote should be binding. I.e. the Electors don't even have to be people but just a representation of the votes (at least for the first ballot).

 

[Poisonshady313]

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 don't think the Electoral College has any value. I think it should be done away with. But not for the reasons most people may think.

I find that so many people who argue against the EC do so poorly, using weak arguments.
But then again, people who support the EC also do so poorly, using weak arguments.

My biggest problem with the EC has to do with the fact that it doesn't resemble what it was when it was created, and it doesn't do anything that its supporters say it does.

It does NOT protect small states. It does NOT make all states matter. It does NOT give more power to low population flyover states.

California, New York, and Illinois are the most populous consistently blue states, and they are the home of the 3 most populous cities in the country.

In 2016, blue votes from these three states combined were 12% of the total national popular vote.
These same three states combine for 19.3% of the electoral vote.

I haven't heard anybody do a decent job of attempting to reconcile these numbers with a claim that the EC is necessary to protect the small red states from the big blue cities. They'll usually just regurgitate talking points about "the US is a republic not a democracy" and "tyranny of the majority" as if it matters.

The bottom line is, since Benjamin Harrison, the EC has been out of sync with the popular vote a grand total of two times. And in that time there have been nearly an equal number of Republican presidents as Democrat presidents. So the idea that the EC is the only thing standing in the way of eternal Democratic mob rule is absurd.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Less populated areas remain important to the candidates.

That's absolutely untrue. After the primaries are over, NOBODY visits Wyoming.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

What is needed is a Magenta party that supports the best policies. Of the blue and red.

 

[Revoltingest]

The EC adds too much complexity & potential for mischief.

 

[Poisonshady313]

The EC adds too much complexity & potential for mischief.

I have a way to simplify it that would make it acceptable to me.

Remove "the people" from the process of the general election for President. Let them participate in the primaries, but that's it. On election day they vote for all the other offices (Senators, Representatives, local elections, etc...) but as the Constitution suggests, let the state legislatures appoint electors, and let the 538 electors vote their conscience.

 

[crossfire]

Yup. They'd have to reach out to the West Coast, New England, the South, and Middle America. They typically don't do that because they don't have to do that, and if they do it's someone with massive drawing power like when Obama flipped Indiana in '08.

The candidates certainly reach out to us when they want our money!

 

[crossfire]

I have a way to simplify it that would make it acceptable to me.

Remove "the people" from the process of the general election for President. Let them participate in the primaries, but that's it. On election day they vote for all the other offices (Senators, Representatives, local elections, etc...) but as the Constitution suggests, let the state legislatures appoint electors, and let the 538 electors vote their conscience.

It would be cheaper for the candidates to buy these electors votes than to go about the country campaigning.

 

[Poisonshady313]

It would be cheaper for the candidates to buy these electors votes than to go about the country campaigning.

Then make it illegal to bribe electors. Or keep the identity of the electors a secret until after the election.

Or clean up the whole mess by scrapping the EC altogether and make the election a popular vote.