Why the Electoral College anyway?

[james bond]

It's as if this post was written in a world without either television or internet.

As for your last paragraph, The EC has nothing whatsoever to do with the primaries. Whether or not the system of using "delegates" to select nominees is one that should or shouldn't change is probably an interesting question... but personally, I support a national popular vote for the general election and don't think this would effect our current way of running primary elections. Though I agree that doing away with superdelegates is a good idea.

This has been a while since the election is over. What I said still holds and we base our system on it because of our wise founding fathers who had the foresight to do so and not based on tv and internet. You have to be a wacko or liberal to support the latter. We would like to have elections "where" people live has some power to sway the election and not just the majority. We are a republic of divided states that live as one as the united states.

 

[Poisonshady313]

This has been a while since the election is over. What I said still holds and we base our system on it because of our wise founding fathers who had the foresight to do so and not based on tv and internet. You have to be a wacko or liberal to support the latter. We would like to have elections "where" people live has some power to sway the election and not just the majority. We are a republic of divided states that live as one as the united states.

I was referring to our ability to know things about people. Donald Trump is a celebrity and has been for some time. Television and internet gives people everywhere in the country the ability to listen to his speeches, watch his debates, and generally learn what he his about.

Bernie Sanders, not a celebrity, can also be thoroughly learned about by looking him up.

Because we don't live in a world where news travels by horseback, the idea that "someone from your backyard is more likely to win the nomination since a majority would be familiar with this person. " is ridiculous.

The EC gives 4.48 million Californians the power of 32 million Californians. I'll explain how:

The total number of electors is supposed to represent the whole of the united states. So if you allocate electors based on population, California's 39 million are represented by 65 electors. However, to give small states the illusion of having a louder voice than they really have, the electors are redistributed so that no state has less than 3 electors. The effect of this leaves California with 55 electors, which are worth 32 million Californians. Regardless of how many people vote, the candidate that gets one more vote than the other gets all 55 electors. They get the full power of 32 million people. 4,483,810 Californians voted for Trump. Which means that 4,483,811 Clinton voters spoke with the voice of 32 million people.

Despite the fact that only 18 million Californians were even eligible to vote, and that only 14 million of those actually voted, just under 4.5 million people got to wield the power of 32 million people.

Given this information, please explain to me how small states and minority voices are protected by this system.

 

[DavidFirth]

The Electoral College does give people an excuse to **** and moan when they lose so I say we keep it!

 

[Poisonshady313]

The Electoral College does give people an excuse to **** and moan when they lose so I say we keep it!

For the record, I didn't vote for Trump or Hillary. I live in New York. My vote doesn't matter.

In a popular vote, every vote matters.

 

[Poisonshady313]

The EC gives 4.48 million Californians the power of 32 million Californians. I'll explain how:

The total number of electors is supposed to represent the whole of the united states. So if you allocate electors based on population, California's 39 million are represented by 65 electors. However, to give small states the illusion of having a louder voice than they really have, the electors are redistributed so that no state has less than 3 electors. The effect of this leaves California with 55 electors, which are worth 32 million Californians. Regardless of how many people vote, the candidate that gets one more vote than the other gets all 55 electors. They get the full power of 32 million people. 4,483,810 Californians voted for Trump. Which means that 4,483,811 Clinton voters spoke with the voice of 32 million people.

Despite the fact that only 18 million Californians were even eligible to vote, and that only 14 million of those actually voted, just under 4.5 million people got to wield the power of 32 million people.

Given this information, please explain to me how small states and minority voices are protected by this system.

The first response of anyone defending the EC is almost always that it protects smaller states from larger states.

If anyone can defend that position in light of what I said about California, I would love to hear it.

 

[tytlyf]

Well I guess I could say that about today's Democrats.

You don't know how someone could vote democratic? What downside is there voting democratic?

 

[Falvlun]

At the very minimum, each state should have to allocate its electoral votes proportional to the popular vote within that state.

 

[Poisonshady313]

At the very minimum, each state should have to allocate its electoral votes proportional to the popular vote within that state.

Before we consider a solution that changes how we award electoral votes, we should first change how the number of electoral votes a state has is decided so that it is based on people who actually vote instead of the state's population. I understand this means that any given year would see a different number of total electors, but the winner of the election would still be the one with half plus one.

And if all of this is too complicated, then we should do away with the electoral college altogether.