Why The Electoral College Is Fair

[9-10ths_Penguin]

True. Didn't think it would change just wanted to debate why it should.

Fair enough.

I agree: it should change.

... though TBH, I think the idea of directly electing a head of state is weird, especially with fixed terms of office. You run the risk of having 4 years of a lame duck presidency where nothing gets accomplished. I think it makes more sense in those situations to call an early election.

... though I may only be saying that because I'm Canadian.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Fair enough.

I agree: it should change.

... though TBH, I think the idea of directly electing a head of state is weird, especially with fixed terms of office. You run the risk of having 4 years of a lame duck presidency where nothing gets accomplished. I think it makes more sense in those situations to call an early election.

... though I may only be saying that because I'm Canadian.

Eh. The idea is that if its a close election then the congress will be different than head of state and it will stop a slight majority from bulldozing the slight minority.

 

[Revoltingest]

I like the EC result this time.
It would be even better if they all voted for Gary Johnson.
But for the next election, we each can't predict whether we'll like
or hate the result. And since the EC & popular votes are generally
within a few percent of each other, it really doesn't matter to me.

 

[Nous]

But what I was asking is if there were more people in rural areas than urban areas would you support inflating the votes democrats in big cities so their voices are heard? If the statistics were reversed for population?

Is it really about equal representaion or is it about inflating conservative power?

Why then do we elect no other offical in the same way if it makes more sense? Why is the presidency the only elected position NOT based on a popular vote?

Why the state middleman? What is the purpouse of that?

The state itself votes for the senators [and Governors]. The cities vote for mayors. Why suddenly with presidents we no longer have a direct say? What is the logical argument that a President is the cutoff point?

You ask excellent questions, Monk. It's unfortunate that those here trying to defend the electoral method of electing the President don't try to answer.

 

[Nous]

The whole idea being promoted, that there is some inherent tension or competition between urban and rural/suburban populations, in which the President has some kind of controlling power to resolve, is just nonsense. Utter nonsense. There is no such competition. The President doesn't make policies that benefit one over the other. And no such thing was contemplated by the Framers as the reason for the electoral college. The reason the Framers instituted to the electoral method was to prevent the uninformed rabble from selecting an unqualified person. The electors should do that this time.

 

[fantome profane]

And since the EC & popular votes are generally
within a few percent of each other, it really doesn't matter to me.

What results are you looking at when you draw this conclusion?

I am looking at these: http://www.cnn.com/election/results/president

And with a little bit of easy math we can compare the percentage in the popular vote to the percentage in the EC.

Trump popular vote: 46.5%
Trump EC percentage: 56.9%

Clinton popular vote: 48.1%
Clinton EC percentage: 43.1%

 

[idav]

I like the EC result this time.
It would be even better if they all voted for Gary Johnson.
But for the next election, we each can't predict whether we'll like
or hate the result. And since the EC & popular votes are generally
within a few percent of each other, it really doesn't matter to me.

I will never like an EC result where the popular doesn't get the election. It could just as easily been the other way around if trump were able to get the popular.

That isn't true the electoral and popular are generally way off when votes are close. If your saying that a one percent EC difference should reflect a one percent popular difference, I agree.

 

[Revoltingest]

What results are you looking at when you draw this conclusion?

All of'm.

I am looking at these: http://www.cnn.com/election/results/president

And with a little bit of easy math we can compare the percentage in the popular vote to the percentage in the EC.

Trump popular vote: 46.5%
Trump EC percentage: 56.9%

Clinton popular vote: 48.1%
Clinton EC percentage: 43.1%

See.....the pop vote is within a couple percent.

 

[Revoltingest]

I will never like an EC result where the popular doesn't get the election. It could just as easily been the other way around if trump were able to get the popular.

Exactly.
It's an element of random chance with respect to the pop vote.

That isn't true the electoral and popular are generally way off when votes are close. If your saying that a one percent EC difference should reflect a one percent popular difference, I agree.

The EC has wild swings, but in the prior elections where the winner lost the pop vote, it was by a small margin.

 

[Revoltingest]

You don't have any text.
?

 

[fantome profane]

You don't have any text.
?

having technical difficulties.

testing testing, can you hear me?

 

[Revoltingest]

having technical difficulties.

testing testing, can you hear me?

I see this post, but I can't hear anything....except for 600
episodes of The Simpsons playing in the background.

 

[esmith]

So your opinion is that it should be changed and the primary method of electing the president should be foregone for the failsafe engineered if a president fails to get a majority? Or are you under the assumption that the HOR elects the president?

Why not, every Tom, Dick, Harry, and Jill wants to change it someway or another. So I'm spouting off just like the rest of them.

And can I ask for why? If Hillary had one intsead of Trump and Trump had gotten the popular vote would you still agree? I"m not here to smack down your opinion I"m just interseted in why.[/QUOTE]
Why? Because I said so.

 

[esmith]

having technical difficulties.

testing testing, can you hear me?

Nope. Try a different provider.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Why? Because I said so.

Forgive me if I feel this is a shallow and dishonest answer.

 

[esmith]

Why not, every Tom, Dick, Harry, and Jill wants to change it someway or another. So I'm spouting off just like the rest of them.

And can I ask for why? If Hillary had one intsead of Trump and Trump had gotten the popular vote would you still agree? I"m not here to smack down your opinion I"m just interseted in why.
Why? Because I said so.

Forgive me if I feel this is a shallow and dishonest answer.

To tell you the truth I went back a looked at the post and I can't figure out why I said it. Something tells me it was a response to another post and I just messed up when I made the post. Either that or I had a huge brain fart.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

To tell you the truth I went back a looked at the post and I can't figure out why I said it. Something tells me it was a response to another post and I just messed up when I made the post. Either that or I had a huge brain fart.

Understandable.

 

[Acim]

I understand. Total land area is vastly republican. But more people are democrats. You feel that the massive "areas" of the united states should have inflated votes for president because you feel it helps their representation. Its exactly right. It does help their representation.

But what I was asking is if there were more people in rural areas than urban areas would you support inflating the votes democrats in big cities so their voices are heard? If the statistics were reversed for population?

Is it really about equal representaion or is it about inflating conservative power? There is a large difference. A meaningful difference.

Not sure I understand this first question. Is it saying if there were more people in rural areas would the electoral college supporters still favor the the EC? As a supporter, I would say yes to the hypothetical, but still don't know what this is actually saying. Rural areas are sparsely populated and cities are population centers. This question seems to be saying if rural ares were heavily populated and population centers were sparsely populated, would it still be wise to go with EC? And because it doesn't make sense in what is being asked, I'd want more elaboration on what this actually looks like.

The EC is what got Obama elected, so challenging to see how it is only about favoring one party over the other. The EC has essentially swung back and forth over the last 40 years, thus whatever view there is that the country's areas are made up to serve during election time seems very hard to pinpoint. So much so that people who make a living doing just this can show up entirely wrong in their ability to predict such outcomes.

 

[Acim]

Why then do we elect no other offical in the same way if it makes more sense? Why is the presidency the only elected position NOT based on a popular vote?

Because total land matters more to the country as a whole, whereas in other elections, it is I think more about ideology. I do think for governors, something similar to EC would be better way to go. So, not sure how to respond to such inquiry other than it would be nice if EC logic was used elsewhere, but am glad it is used in what is arguably the most important voting decision US Americans make.

 

[Acim]

Why the state middleman? What is the purpouse of that?

Because of the name "United States." I guess we could change to the United Population Centers that Wish the Rural Areas would Just Die Off of America. But I'm thinking that title is too long. Perhaps just go with "United Population Centers" and leave the rest as implied.