The Electoral College

[Subduction Zone]

The point was that the movie was believable because that was people's perceptions back then and the current perceptions are nothing new. We can say that the perceptions are wrong but that will not change people's perceptions. This is the reality we must deal with.From here:A widespread perception took issue w/ Al Franken's Minnesota win where he had been behind by 726, after two weeks of recounts he was still behind by 215 votes, and six months of recounts later Franken finally won by 312 votes. Many consider that voter fraud & we can say they're wrong all we want --they'll still prevent the abolition of the EC.

Christ on a bicycle. Yes people may have false perceptions. The cure for that is education. And the Franken race was extremely close. Far closer than any of the states in the recent Presidential election. There were a number of issues that tipped the elections Franken's way. One major reason may have been the counting of votes previously uncounted:

He also did better than Coleman when election officials opened and counted more than 900 absentee ballots that had erroneously been disqualified on Election Day.

Franken wins Minnesota Senate race recount | CBC News

Close races will always be contentious but if anything they support dropping the EC. A state that is very close would give all of its electoral votes to one candidates (except for in two states). That can unfairly change an election. When it comes to the nation as a whole the popular votes is not affected by the few states that are extremely close. Your argument supports ending the EC, not preserving it.....

 

[Pete in Panama]

Christ on a bicycle. Yes people may have false perceptions. The cure for that is education...

Perhaps in an idealized world but how would we translate that to the way things are today? You can't be thinking that we want to round up everyone in favor of the EC and send them off to some kind of barbed wire enclosed reeducation camp.

I honestly see this as something far more intractable --perhaps solvable w/ new voting laws. After the 2000 election a bipartisan commission headed (iirc) by Jimmy Carter recommended among other changes voter ID requirements, mandatory opposition reps witnessing the counting, purging of old voting lists, and many other recommendations that would never be acceptable in this day and age. Let's face it, this new voting law change thing has a long way to go.

You sound like this is really ticking you off, and rightly so as this is definitely a passionate issue. Given the fact that these passions will be found on all sides I personally see no soon amendment ending EC.

...Your argument supports ending the EC, not preserving it...

Interesting, you understood that I was arguing in favor of the EC, that's not my intent at all. My point is that it's not going to end any time soon. We're in agreement on that aren't we?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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 like the American Electoral College system (as an outside observer).
However, I think you need need a way to stop the most populous cities becoming more important that the rest of the country.

If I can talk about my local experience as an analogue, Australia has 40% of the total population of the country held in just 2 cities (Melbourne and Sydney). That's a more extreme concentration than most countries, but it does mean that policies impacting on Melbourne or Sydney would have a much greater impact on votes than policies impacting on the rest of the country.

There is a risk in that, I believe.

However, tilt things too much the other way, and suddenly the vote of that person in Melbourne or Sydney is practically without value.

A good, pragmatic system has to give value to each and every vote, but at the same time protect the country from overly valuing impacts on population centres, to the long-term detriment of the whole.

I don't think the Electoral College achieves that. However, I don't think a simple popular vote at the national level, first past the post system does either.

Disclaimer : The US system is understandable to me. But the difference between voting for the House of Reps, Senate and for the President is a little hard for me to grasp the nuance of, in practical terms. Here, the leader of the party who wins the House of Reps is the Prime Minister. We don't vote for that post at all.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I don't like the American Electoral College system (as an outside observer).
However, I think you need need a way to stop the most populous cities becoming more important that the rest of the country.

If I can talk about my local experience as an analogue, Australia has 40% of the total population of the country held in just 2 cities (Melbourne and Sydney). That's a more extreme concentration than most countries, but it does mean that policies impacting on Melbourne or Sydney would have a much greater impact on votes than policies impacting on the rest of the country.

There is a risk in that, I believe.

However, tilt things too much the other way, and suddenly the vote of that person in Melbourne or Sydney is practically without value.

A good, pragmatic system has to give value to each and every vote, but at the same time protect the country from overly valuing impacts on population centres, to the long-term detriment of the whole.

I don't think the Electoral College achieves that. However, I don't think a simple popular vote at the national level, first past the post system does either.

Disclaimer : The US system is understandable to me. But the difference between voting for the House of Reps, Senate and for the President is a little hard for me to grasp the nuance of, in practical terms. Here, the leader of the party who wins the House of Reps is the Prime Minister. We don't vote for that post at all.

Maybe as an outside observer, you can do a better job at answering my question than Americans.

The most populous cities in this country are New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

The votes from the majority party in the states where those cities are located accounted, in 2016, for 12% of the total national popular vote.
Meanwhile, those three states account for 19.3% of the electoral vote.

The most populous cities have been made more important by the electoral college, not less.

So how can it be said that the EC prevents the most populous cities from becoming more important than the rest of the country?

 

[Poisonshady313]

W/O the EC it would be a lot easier for such machines to spin the election w/ say, 60 million votes in California all for the same candidate.

What is it about the EC that makes you think it's more difficult to do that right now?

 

[Pete in Panama]

What is it about the EC that makes you think it's more difficult to do that right now?

Sure they could do that right now but it wouldn't spin the election, it would be just "aw yeah, funny old California at it again...".

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Given the fact that these passions will be found on all sides I personally see no soon amendment ending EC.

This is why I feel that is the path of "abandon all hope." For the foreseeable future it just is not going to happen. And why I favor rendering the EC powerless by states enacting popular vote pledges. Then state by state the EC can basically be nullified until it starts impacting elections, the Supreme Court will rule in favor of state's rights as it is their Constitutional right to choose electors as they will, and without constitutional amendment the EC would be approached in such a way as to render it a powerless formality.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Maybe as an outside observer, you can do a better job at answering my question than Americans.

The most populous cities in this country are New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

The votes from the majority party in the states where those cities are located accounted, in 2016, for 12% of the total national popular vote.
Meanwhile, those three states account for 19.3% of the electoral vote.

The most populous cities have been made more important by the electoral college, not less.

So how can it be said that the EC prevents the most populous cities from becoming more important than the rest of the country?

I'm happy to have a crack, but would quickly admit I'm no expert on US procedures. Still, happy to pontificate regardless...what else is the internet for?

Firstly, my example using Australia is almost ridiculously clear and obvious. I'm not sure if any democracy in the world has as much concentration of population in 2 cities as we have. For the most part, 'real' examples are going to be more convoluted, and the US certainly is.

Secondly...you might be better considering it from the opposite end of the spectrum when it comes to the US. There is a floor on the number of electoral votes from a state. Regardless of limited population, you must have 3. So Wyoming residents can more greatly impact on the placement of their states 3 votes than a Texas resident can, for example, taking into account number of votes per capita. Switching to a one voter - one vote national election would in some senses 'fix' this. The Wyoming resident is now holding a vote worth the same as a Houston resident. The risk is that political parties can then completely ignore Wyoming (even as they may currently be paying Wyoming too much attention).

For other states, as you have mentioned, the electoral college might be inflating the impact of particular populous locations. It doesn't appear to be a smooth continuum to me.
However...honestly...my biggest issue with the current electoral college system isn't based on pure population density per electoral college vote. It's actually;

• The split between states which proportionally assign their votes as against the states that vote in a single bloc.
• The ability of a votes to be cast in a way which is not representative of the popular vote in a given state.

Those 2 factors have FAR more impact on the value of a given vote in the US, imho.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Sure they could do that right now but it wouldn't spin the election, it would be just "aw yeah, funny old California at it again...".

It wouldn't be California... but why couldn't they pick a swing state and do it there? That would absolutely spin the election. What stops it from happening??

 

[Poisonshady313]

For other states, as you have mentioned, the electoral college might be inflating the impact of particular populous locations. It doesn't appear to be a smooth continuum to me.
However...honestly...my biggest issue with the current electoral college system isn't based on pure population density per electoral college vote. It's actually;

• The split between states which proportionally assign their votes as against the states that vote in a single bloc.
• The ability of a votes to be cast in a way which is not representative of the popular vote in a given state.

Those 2 factors have FAR more impact on the value of a given vote in the US, imho.

There are two states that proportionally assign their votes. Two small states. The other 48 plus DC are winner take all. Those two small states account for a total of 9 out of 538 electors... their impact is negligible.

The other point is a lot more interesting.
I like to talk about California only because its numbers are easy enough to talk about, plus as the most populous state in the country, it's kind of a big deal...

Consider that a state with approximately 40 million people has only 18 million registered voters. In 2016, 4.5 million of them voted for Trump. 8.8 million of them voted for Clinton. But because of the electoral college and winner take all, the result is as if 40 million of them voted for Clinton.

So Wyoming residents can more greatly impact on the placement of their states 3 votes than a Texas resident can, for example, taking into account number of votes per capita."

This is the reason why I'm responding to your post slightly out of order... because this is a beautiful segue into the meaning of what I just said about California.

If Wyoming has approximately 500,000 people, and the 3 electors make it seem as if they really have 1.5 million people... in the face of 8.8 Californians being given the power of 40 million people, Wyoming's increase of their impact is like adding a grain of sand to the beach. Insignificant.

Even if we said "well, the small states have an artificial increase, which means the large states have an artificial decrease." That would mean California's 55 electors represented approximately 33 million people.

An elector in Wyoming might represent fewer people than you would expect based on the number of electors, but I promise you this does not raise the value of a Wyoming vote above that of Texas. Or California.

The power of an elector does not lie in the number of people represented by an elector. The power of an elector is based on its percentage of the total vote.

Wyoming's impact on the outcome of the election is 3 out of 538 electors, or 0.55%.
Texas' impact on the outcome is 38 out of 538 electors, or 7.06%
California's impact on the outcome is 55 out of 538 electors, or 10.22%

Switching to a one voter - one vote national election would in some senses 'fix' this. The Wyoming resident is now holding a vote worth the same as a Houston resident. The risk is that political parties can then completely ignore Wyoming (even as they may currently be paying Wyoming too much attention).

The political parties already do completely ignore Wyoming.

Firstly, my example using Australia is almost ridiculously clear and obvious. I'm not sure if any democracy in the world has as much concentration of population in 2 cities as we have. For the most part, 'real' examples are going to be more convoluted, and the US certainly is.

Did the numbers I provide not have an impact on the way you perceive how the cities vote in America? Getting rid of the electoral college would reduce the influence of the three states that contain the three most populous cities in the country by almost half. Surely this indicates that the rest of a country would have a greater influence.

Lets add two more large states...

If we take the 2016 blue votes from California, New York, Texas, Florida and Illinois, they add up to 18.1% of the total national popular vote. Still a smaller percentage than the electoral influence of just 3 states: California, New York and Illinois. (19.3%)

Hopefully you're starting to see how, in this country, a popular vote would not, could not, place the outcome of election in the hands of merely a few cities, or even a few states. You would need the whole country, instead of needing just Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, and Michigan.

I'm happy to have a crack, but would quickly admit I'm no expert on US procedures. Still, happy to pontificate regardless...what else is the internet for?

You can be proud of yourself. You've done better than some Americans I've had this conversation with.

 

[Pete in Panama]

...I favor rendering the EC powerless by states enacting popular vote pledges...

That would be at first glace possible but as things evolve it's extremely unlikely that a state will follow though if it doesn't match w/ the goals of the party in charge at the moment. There's simply no way that California for example would apportion its electors if it would bring in a presidential candidate from the wrong party --the Calif. legislature would simply rescind the original pledge as easily as in had enacted it in the first place.

 

[Pete in Panama]

It wouldn't be California... but why couldn't they pick a swing state and do it there? That would absolutely spin the election. What stops it from happening??

We're not connecting here. The subject of our convo had been whether a populous state w/o the EC could dominate the presidential race. You seemed to say that it wouldn't make any difference, and I tried to explain that w/o the EC a populous state could swamp the nation-wide tally w/ by stuffing ballot boxes across the country.

Are we together this far?

 

[fantome profane]

However, I think you need need a way to stop the most populous cities becoming more important that the rest of the country.

People seem to forget the way the U.S. Senate is set up. Each state gets 2 Senators. The most populous state gets 2, and the least populous gets 2. This seems to me to be a fair compromise between straight up democratic representation like in the house, and representation by region in the Senate.

 

[Poisonshady313]

We're not connecting here. The subject of our convo had been whether a populous state w/o the EC could dominate the presidential race. You seemed to say that it wouldn't make any difference, and I tried to explain that w/o the EC a populous state could swamp the nation-wide tally w/ by stuffing ballot boxes across the country.

Are we together this far?

Not sure yet.
It sounds like what you're saying is that the often repeated claim that states like California would dominate a popular vote is based entirely on the notion that it would be easier to commit serious fraud in a single state, rather than doing it in a couple of swing states.

Like, why go to Michigan, Florida and Pennsylvania to commit fraud when you can just dump all the extra votes into California?

Does that sound right?

It sounds to me like a distinction without a real difference.

There are people today claiming that fraud in this election caused Trump to lose, usually from the same sort of people who fiercely defend the EC. It doesn't sound like the EC is as effective at preventing fraud as you suggest.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That would be at first glace possible but as things evolve it's extremely unlikely that a state will follow though if it doesn't match w/ the goals of the party in charge at the moment. There's simply no way that California for example would apportion its electors if it would bring in a presidential candidate from the wrong party --the Calif. legislature would simply rescind the original pledge as easily as in had enacted it in the first place.

Have we a crystal ball to know this is how it would inevitably end? (No, you don't)
And for a quick refresher, it's state officials in states like Arizona who have disgraced themselves acting on nothing more than lies.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Like, why go to Michigan, Florida and Pennsylvania to commit fraud when you can just dump all the extra votes into California?

Yes, because we don't check or verify ballots.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Yes, because we don't check or verify ballots.

Im not asking the question... Im trying to clarify the point Pete is trying to make.

 

[Pete in Panama]

...It sounds to me like a distinction without a real difference.

This is the key point, that while it sounds that way to you we need to remember that it does not sound that way to the other half of the population. This is why I've said we can't end the EC w/ half the population (given our amendment process) because the other half of the population fears something you don't see.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Have we a crystal ball to know this is how it would inevitably end?....

We can simply work with things we can both see together.

There has been a movement to do just as you say. Would you be willing to post the number of states that have acted as you described and have pledged to abide by the nationwide popular vote? Aside from the fact that these state legislatures would retain the power to unpledge as easily as they've pledged, lets identify just how many have signed on so far.

 

[Poisonshady313]

This is the key point, that while it sounds that way to you we need to remember that it does not sound that way to the other half of the population. This is why I've said we can't end the EC w/ half the population (given our amendment process) because the other half of the population fears something you don't see.

Let me rephrase. It simply is a distinction without a difference. Fraud is fraud. It can happen just as easily now.

Besides, the country would notice if 60 million votes came out of California. They only have approximately 18 million registered voters. It would be wildly suspicious if even 18 million votes were cast.

Consider this. Even if 100% if the votes were genuine, not fraudulent... the EC gives big states an advantage in another interesting way. They could load up on illegals every 10 years just in time for the census in order to increase their number of electors.

One more problem solved by a popular vote.