Why the Electoral College anyway?

[Acim]

Something about the current numbers for popular vote don't make sense to me. Here are the totals I'm seeing:

Trump = 59,611,678 (47%)
Clinton = 59,814,018 (48%)
Johnson = 4,058,500 (3%)
Stein = 1,213,103 (1%)
Other = 802,119 (.7%)

With these numbers, Clinton is I'm thinking around .2% ahead. So, is that then saying:

Trump = 47.9%
Clinton = 48.1%
Johnson = 2.9%
Stein = 1.4%
Other = .7%

Cause with those numbers, I'm getting around 101%. But not sure how to make the math work with Trump and Clinton otherwise. Need someone else to crunch the numbers or find more exact data.

Or maybe it's:

Trump = 47.4%
Clinton = 47.6%
Johnson = 3%
Stein = 1.3%
Other = .7%

That makes sense, but also shows how tight it is right now in popular vote. Though projections (that I'm seeing) say Clinton will end up 1.2% point ahead.

Had it just been a 2 way race, Clinton would've probably ended up around 66,666,666 as her total. Ha!

 

[Iti oj]

So when the Democrats win it no one cares about it. But when the Republicans win there is suddenly a problem afoot.

Oh my.

The democrats have won the popular vote the last 6 elections

 

[Acim]

The democrats have won the popular vote the last 6 elections

Even more reason to stick with the Electoral.

 

[Nous]

I know "how the law works". Obviously you haven't been able to identify any benefit whatsoever that results from electing the President by the electoral method rather than by national popular vote.

The benefit is that it represents the will of the States, and is an expression of the republic form of government - not the democratic form.

No, republican forms of government do not (need to) violate the the Constitutional principle of equal vote weight denoted by the phrase “one person, one vote,” which the state-winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes violates. There is no Constitutional principle or right relating to states analogous to the right of "one person, one vote".

States are not in competition with each other. Obviously it doesn't benefit anyone for a state to award its electoral votes to the candidate who doesn't win the national popular vote. That's why you haven't been able to identify any benefit of the state-winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes.

As already noted, which you haven't even addressed, the state-winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does nothing other than create voter apathy, vote wasting, unequal vote weight and commonly results in giving the Presidency to the candidate who doesn't win the popular vote.

 

[Nous]

If we had it the way everyone else here seems to want it then we might as well never allow anyone who isn't in Chicago, New York, Portland, Seattle, or Los Angeles to vote since no one else's would matter.

False. There are not more voters in those five cities than in the rest of the country.

 

[Nous]

One reason is lets say we have multiple fairly strong parties some day. Do we give the presidency to the one of the seven candidates with the most popular votes? There are some messy scenarios without an electoral college that might make the above scenario better left in congress's hands.

State Governors and Senators to the US Congress are elected by the popular vote of each state. Can you point out any "messy scenarios" that have occurred because of this?

 

[whirlingmerc]

The general goal was to consider all the interests of the various colonies coming together
If we wet by a straight vote, then the smaller states would be largely ignored

There is no perfect voting method and there is even a mathematical proof that no voting system
will be perfect with respect to a list of desirable criteria (for the proof)
I personally favor one used by the Oscars which is an automatic runoff where voters list their preferences in order and if their first choice is not in the top 3 or 4, their vote goes to the next highest in their list automatically

 

[Nous]

But then you have candidates only focusing on a handful of key states and ignoring the rest of the country.

That is precisely what happens under the state-winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes. The candidates spend all of the money, time, attention and promises on the few battleground states; all other states are ignored completely. See the 2012 campaign spending here, especially the graphic at WaPo article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/track-presidential-campaign-ads-2012/

http://www.ibtimes.com/state-state-breakdown-presidential-campaign-spending-reveals-surprises-782497

http://www.fairvote.org/2012chart

 

[Nous]

The popular vote is not irrelevant in my book. But I think there is reason to do both, like is currently done, and I think electoral college does make more sense than popular vote. If we switched to popular vote tomorrow, then the day after that and possibly even the next time we vote in national elections, it wouldn't appear all that different.

The election after the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact goes into effect will be radically different from all other Presidential elections.

In the first place, no person's vote for the winning candidate will be wasted, which will eliminate the primary reason for voter apathy. No person's vote will have unequal weight. The candidates will not spend all of their time, money, attention and promises on the few battleground states. A million votes in, say, Arkansas will be as important as a million votes in Florida. And there will not be the possibility of the candidate who didn't win the national popular vote getting to be President.

if you could get around 80% of your party to live in particular areas, this would be ideal during elections.

Presidential candidates will not try to herd their supporters into "particular areas".

If there was a point that you made in the remainder of that post that hasn't been addressed here, please state it again. I wasn't able to shovel through it all.

 

[Underhill]

In the days of slow transportation & a widely dispersed population, the electoral college made more sense than counting all the popular votes. Nowadays, we could handle it. The loss in power for the smaller states doesn't strike me as a problem because it meant they have proportionately too much now. So what if candidates won't campaign there? That's their good fortune.

It would also negate gerrymandering in national elections.

 

[Nous]

If we wet by a straight vote, then the smaller states would be largely ignored

False. With election by the national popular vote, a million potential votes in Arkansas would be as important to a candidate as a million votes in upstate New York or northern California.

 

[buddhist]

No, republican forms of government do not (need to) violate the the Constitutional principle of equal vote weight denoted by the phrase “one person, one vote,” which the state-winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes violates. There is no Constitutional principle or right relating to states analogous to the right of "one person, one vote".

States are not in competition with each other. Obviously it doesn't benefit anyone for a state to award its electoral votes to the candidate who doesn't win the national popular vote. That's why you haven't been able to identify any benefit of the state-winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes.

As already noted, which you haven't even addressed, the state-winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does nothing other than create voter apathy, vote wasting, unequal vote weight and commonly results in giving the Presidency to the candidate who doesn't win the popular vote.

I do not support the idea of a national United States. National States in a federation, yes.

 

[Nous]

I do not support the idea of a national United States.

So, in other words, you cannot identify any benefit to either the state-winner-take-all or district-winner-take-all electoral method of electing the President as opposed to the national popular vote method. And you still have not been willing or able to address, much less offer any solution to, the very serious problems caused by the electoral method of electing the President, namely voter apathy, vote wasting, unequal vote weight and the less-popular candidate getting the office. Right?

 

[buddhist]

So, in other words, you cannot identify any benefit to either the state-winner-take-all or district-winner-take-all electoral method of electing the President as opposed to the national popular vote method. And you still have not been willing or able to address, much less offer any solution to, the very serious problems caused by the electoral method of electing the President, namely voter apathy, vote wasting, unequal vote weight and the less-popular candidate getting the office. Right?

A individual does not vote in an organization they're not part of.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Suppose the popular vote was the only way to elect the President. Couldn't a candidate with the backing of some very, very deep pockets promise five or six of the most populous states the sun and moon and steal the election? Or supposing it was determined that a particular candidate was a raving lunatic but still got the popular vote? The Electoral College can use their power to keep scenarios such as this from happening. No matter how you feel about the Electoral College, it is probably one of the wisest and fairest method or electing a president. Again, another example of the vision processed by the Founding Fathers of this country.

Good points. And I always had supported the popular vote more than the electoral.

I feel so convoluted now.

 

[Nous]

A individual does not vote in an organization they're not part of.

OK. Does that assertion have any relevance to anything I said?

 

[Nous]

And I always had supported the popular vote more than the electoral.

I feel so convoluted now.

You'll feel even more convoluted when a Democrat wins the electoral vote while losing the popular vote.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You'll feel even more convoluted when a Democrat wins the electoral vote while losing the popular vote.

Makes me wonder how our forefathers handled it?

 

[buddhist]

OK. Does that assertion have any relevance to anything I said?

Yes, it involves legal liability.

 

[Nous]

Yes, it involves legal liability.

Please go right ahead and explain what is the relevance of "legal liability" to my post:

So, in other words, you cannot identify any benefit to either the state-winner-take-all or district-winner-take-all electoral method of electing the President as opposed to the national popular vote method. And you still have not been willing or able to address, much less offer any solution to, the very serious problems caused by the electoral method of electing the President, namely voter apathy, vote wasting, unequal vote weight and the less-popular candidate getting the office. Right?​

Obviously my post doesn't comment on the issue of "legal liability".

Why don't you begin by answering the question I asked?