The legality of Trump's Remain in Mexico policy is questioned

[Enoch07]

If you win those states plus the states that are "locks" for your party, you win. A small number of swing states end up being disproportionately important in the election.

Last election proved there are no "locks".

Hillary lost because she didn't campaign enough in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Which Trump turned from blue to res states.

The States Hillary Clinton Neglected Led to Her Defeat

Relying on supposed "locked" states was ultimately her demise. Had she campaigned more thoroughly there who knows, she might have won.

 

[Shiranui117]

That's right. And it's true.


That's right: while the EC is almost certain to create unfair distortions and put disproportionate power in the hands of only a few states, the specific unfair situation in effect at the moment can vary over time.

Whereas a national popular vote would arguably be even more unfair, putting the election in the hands of only a few metropolitan areas concentrated mainly along the coasts. Rural America would have no say, because rural and urban America live in two entirely different worlds. We already see how during the California droughts, the cities were taking water away from the rural farming communities and causing many of the crops to rot because of it while the urban elites were watering their lawns. Small-town and rural America would cease to be of any importance in Presidential elections if we were to do away with the electoral college. The presidential candidates would be catering to the big cities and not much else.

These are all the counties that Clinton won a majority in:

And that's all it took for Clinton to win a national majority.

If you win those states plus the states that are "locks" for your party, you win. A small number of swing states end up being disproportionately important in the election.

And this still makes sense because the swing states generally have a good mix of different community types--urban, agrarian, industrial, suburban, white-collar, blue-collar, etc. It ensures that each party still has to try to cater to a wider demographic of people rather than only a few subcategories.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Whereas a national popular vote would arguably be even more unfair, putting the election in the hands of only a few metropolitan areas concentrated mainly along the coasts. Rural America would have no say, because rural and urban America live in two entirely different worlds. We already see how during the California droughts, the cities were taking water away from the rural farming communities and causing many of the crops to rot because of it while the urban elites were watering their lawns. Small-town and rural America would cease to be of any importance in Presidential elections if we were to do away with the electoral college. The presidential candidates would be catering to the big cities and not much else.

That's already happening, just state-by-state. California allocates its EC votes all-or-nothing. The minority party there - which dominates the rural areas of California, as you point out - currently does not get reflected in the EC result at all. Switching to the popular vote would give rural Californians more say in the choice of President, not less.

These are all the counties that Clinton won a majority in:

And that's all it took for Clinton to win a national majority.

Maps like this are misleading, since they ignore the population of each county, but have a look at each state.

See all that red in northern California? It didn't get reflected in the result at all. Same with that big blue swath through Utah. And see all those dark, dark red counties in Texas? The state got counted as if it was a uniform light, light pink.

Trump carried Texas with a margin of nearly a million votes, but his result was no different than if he carried the state by a single vote. How is that fair to Texas Republicans?

And this still makes sense because the swing states generally have a good mix of different community types--urban, agrarian, industrial, suburban, white-collar, blue-collar, etc. It ensures that each party still has to try to cater to a wider demographic of people rather than only a few subcategories.

...in those swing states. It's fine and good for Michigan blue-collar workers if a candidate promises that they'll make sure any auto plant closures don't happen in Michigan, but this isn't exactly great for blue-collar workers in Tennessee or Alabama whose auto plants would be at risk instead.

 

[Stevicus]

That's already happening, just state-by-state. California allocates its EC votes all-or-nothing. The minority party there - which dominates the rural areas of California, as you point out - currently does not get reflected in the EC result at all. Switching to the popular vote would give rural Californians more say in the choice of President, not less.


Maps like this are misleading, since they ignore the population of each county, but have a look at each state.

See all that red in northern California? It didn't get reflected in the result at all. Same with that big blue swath through Utah. And see all those dark, dark red counties in Texas? The state got counted as if it was a uniform light, light pink.

Trump carried Texas with a margin of nearly a million votes, but his result was no different than if he carried the state by a single vote. How is that fair to Texas Republicans?


...in those swing states. It's fine and good for Michigan blue-collar workers if a candidate promises that they'll make sure any auto plant closures don't happen in Michigan, but this isn't exactly great for blue-collar workers in Tennessee or Alabama whose auto plants would be at risk instead.

Another solution to the problems outlined here is removing the "winner take all" provision of the Electoral College.

As to the map, this is another electoral map which might give a clearer picture:

The swing states might be political battleground states, but they don't necessarily "decide" the election.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Another solution to the problems outlined here is removing the "winner take all" provision of the Electoral College.

As to the map, this is another electoral map which might give a clearer picture:

The swing states might be political battleground states, but they don't necessarily "decide" the election.

Dividing the vote into 500-odd all-or-nothing pieces is better than dividing it into 50-odd all-or-nothing results, but if you have to do a constitutional amendment anyway, why wouldn't you go for the better, fairer option: plain old popular vote?

What you're talking about still has the inherent problems of unfairness and disproportionality that we have in any first-past-the-post system: both the minority party AND the winning margin don't get reflected in the result at all. Instead of nullifying a huge chunk of the votes at the state level, you'd be nullifying them district-by-district. You'd still have the same problem; you'd just be parcelling out the unfairness somewhat differently.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Whereas a national popular vote would arguably be even more unfair,

I'm curious: can you actually argue this?

I would think that one person, one vote is the most inherently fair system to elect a representative. Why do you disagree?

 

[Stevicus]

Dividing the vote into 500-odd all-or-nothing pieces is better than dividing it into 50-odd all-or-nothing results, but if you have to do a constitutional amendment anyway, why wouldn't you go for the better, fairer option: plain old popular vote?

What you're talking about still has the inherent problems of unfairness and disproportionality that we have in any first-past-the-post system: both the minority party AND the winning margin don't get reflected in the result at all. Instead of nullifying a huge chunk of the votes at the state level, you'd be nullifying them district-by-district. You'd still have the same problem; you'd just be parcelling out the unfairness somewhat differently.

Removing the winner-take-all aspect of the Electoral College would not require a constitutional amendment. That's merely a rule change decided at the state level.

I have no real dispute with eliminating the EC and having a "plain old popular vote." But it would take a great deal of political capital to accomplish, and in the end, it probably wouldn't change all that much in terms of how this country is governed.

Most of the time, the EC vote results match the popular vote anyway. A few times it hasn't, but if the winner-take-all provision was removed, then it would have.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Removing the winner-take-all aspect of the Electoral College would not require a constitutional amendment. That's merely a rule change decided at the state level.

If it was done state-by-state, then I would expect it to be implemented piecemeal, and only where the party in power in that state thought they could get an advantage. To get it across the board like you described, I think it would have to be imposed on the states.

I have no real dispute with eliminating the EC and having a "plain old popular vote." But it would take a great deal of political capital to accomplish, and in the end, it probably wouldn't change all that much in terms of how this country is governed.

Most of the time, the EC vote results match the popular vote anyway. A few times it hasn't, but if the winner-take-all provision was removed, then it would have.

Even when the electoral college result and the popular vote match, changing the system would change the dynamics. A candidate would care just as much about a vote from a state that's solidly going for or against them as they would about a vote from a "battleground" state. Every voter would be worth the candidate's effort and attention.

And a popular vote for president would be in line with the rest of the system:

- Representatives represent a single district. They're elected by a popular vote of that district.
- Senators represent their state. They're elected by a popular vote of that state.
- The President represents the entire country, and so ought to be elected based on the popular vote of the entire country.

 

[Stevicus]

If it was done state-by-state, then I would expect it to be implemented piecemeal, and only where the party in power in that state thought they could get an advantage. To get it across the board like you described, I think it would have to be imposed on the states.

Possibly so, although the Federal government could still persuade the states to do so if they put their mind to it. They got states to raise their drinking age to 21 by holding Federal highway funds over their head. That didn't require amending the Constitution.

Even when the electoral college result and the popular vote match, changing the system would change the dynamics. A candidate would care just as much about a vote from a state that's solidly going for or against them as they would about a vote from a "battleground" state. Every voter would be worth the candidate's effort and attention.

I tend to doubt that. A wealthy donor will always have more clout than a common voter, regardless of which state they come from. Money drives the electoral process more than anything else, and the vast majority of voters are hypnotized by political commercials and pundits in the media telling them how to vote.

Even many in the government and political elite have essentially acknowledged this to be true, as evidenced by the charges relating to "foreign interference" in the last election. Basically, they're saying that people with enough money to buy technology and media have the ability to influence an election. It was no shock to me, but many have reacted as if they've just found out there's no Santa Claus.

Where does "every voter" figure into this, and why would a candidate care any more about the average voter than they currently do?

And a popular vote for president would be in line with the rest of the system:

- Representatives represent a single district. They're elected by a popular vote of that district.
- Senators represent their state. They're elected by a popular vote of that state.
- The President represents the entire country, and so ought to be elected based on the popular vote of the entire country.

The difference here is that the Representatives and Senators are part of the Legislative Branch. The President is part of the Executive Branch. There's no compelling reason that they would have to be "in line" with each other, especially considering that the Judicial Branch is totally unelected.

It's also the same with most of the rest of the Executive Branch - the Cabinet, the Joint Chiefs, FBI Director, etc., who are also unelected.

 

[Shiranui117]

That's already happening, just state-by-state. California allocates its EC votes all-or-nothing. The minority party there - which dominates the rural areas of California, as you point out - currently does not get reflected in the EC result at all. Switching to the popular vote would give rural Californians more say in the choice of President, not less.


Maps like this are misleading, since they ignore the population of each county, but have a look at each state.

See all that red in northern California? It didn't get reflected in the result at all. Same with that big blue swath through Utah. And see all those dark, dark red counties in Texas? The state got counted as if it was a uniform light, light pink.

Trump carried Texas with a margin of nearly a million votes, but his result was no different than if he carried the state by a single vote. How is that fair to Texas Republicans?


...in those swing states. It's fine and good for Michigan blue-collar workers if a candidate promises that they'll make sure any auto plant closures don't happen in Michigan, but this isn't exactly great for blue-collar workers in Tennessee or Alabama whose auto plants would be at risk instead.

And this is why I would argue for a split-delegate system to be the standard, like in Nebraska and Maine. Doing away with the Electoral College altogether would shut rural communities entirely out of the conversation; to reiterate, the only areas that candidates would need to worry about campaigning in would be the urban metropolises and maybe a few small areas outside of that. Most communities in the US would be utterly ignored. However, splitting the delegates means that every candidate would have to worry about winning over many different parts of each state.

 

[ecco]

Gore should have won but he lost due to his own actions. Calling Bush appointed is not accurate.

Context, context, context. My comment was addressed to a poster who wrote:

Democrats have always ignored the will of the people, and sought the courts to promote their goals.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And this is why I would argue for a split-delegate system to be the standard, like in Nebraska and Maine. Doing away with the Electoral College altogether would shut rural communities entirely out of the conversation; to reiterate, the only areas that candidates would need to worry about campaigning in would be the urban metropolises and maybe a few small areas outside of that.

Just wondering: why do you think that would be bad?

Or more to the point: why would it be better than a system where a voter in LA only has a third of the say of a voter in Wyoming?

Most communities in the US would be utterly ignored.

Well, no. Every community would still have their representatives and senators.

However, splitting the delegates means that every candidate would have to worry about winning over many different parts of each state.

Which still gives a big middle finger to a huge part of the electorate... on both sides.

 

[Shiranui117]

Just wondering: why do you think that would be bad?

Or more to the point: why would it be better than a system where a voter in LA only has a third of the say of a voter in Wyoming?

Because the guy in Wyoming grows the food that the voter in LA eats. If the voter in Wyoming is ignored in favor of 10 people in LA, then the President elected under such a system is liable to focus on the people in LA and inadvertently screw over the guy in Wyoming, who cannot then provide enough food to feed the 10 people in LA.

Well, no. Every community would still have their representatives and senators.

Yes, but the Department of Agriculture, the EPA, Department of Energy, Fish and Wildlife Service, etc. are all managed by the executive branch, and the heads of these departments are all appointed by the President. If you have a President who is only ever elected by the urban communities, you now have a President with a mandate to cater to the whims of urban communities, and governmental policy will be enacted accordingly. It is important that the will of all American communities and regions is reflected in the policies enacted by the executive branch.

Which still gives a big middle finger to a huge part of the electorate... on both sides.

There's no perfect system. And I don't see how a nationwide majority vote without regard to states would be better.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because the guy in Wyoming grows the food that the voter in LA eats. If the voter in Wyoming is ignored in favor of 10 people in LA, then the President elected under such a system is liable to focus on the people in LA and inadvertently screw over the guy in Wyoming, who cannot then provide enough food to feed the 10 people in LA.

Like most Americans, lot of the food that the guy in LA is eating is grown in California. Why do you want to give California farmers less of a voice?

Yes, but the Department of Agriculture, the EPA, Department of Energy, Fish and Wildlife Service, etc. are all managed by the executive branch, and the heads of these departments are all appointed by the President. If you have a President who is only ever elected by the urban communities, you now have a President with a mandate to cater to the whims of urban communities, and governmental policy will be enacted accordingly. It is important that the will of all American communities and regions is reflected in the policies enacted by the executive branch.

Many of the high-level appointments to the executive branch have to be approved by the Senate, where every state has equal representation.

There's no perfect system. And I don't see how a nationwide majority vote without regard to states would be better.

If nothing else, it would more accurately reflect the will of the people and would uphold the basic democratic principle of equality between all citizens.

Edit: the Electoral College had two main purposes:

- to provide a way to institute the three-fifths compromise.
- to address practical realities of an era when information only travelled as fast as a horse.

Both of these purposes are now obsolete.