Why The Electoral College Is Fair

[Monk Of Reason]

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 argument posed is that rural America would be ruled by the more populated urban America. The argument is that those rural voices needed to be enhanced in order to have a say in our politics. This is mostly based off of a myth but to humor the point I asked if rural America outnumbered Urban America would they be in favor of increasing the voting power of urban America in order to have their voices heard?

The crux of the piont was me wondering if it was just bias because they wanted their votes inflated or if it was actually important to them in some way.

My main point at the begining of the argument is why any vote shoulc count more than anothers. Why does a Hawaiian vote cout more or less than a Wisconson vote? Why does a vote in NYC count less than the vote of a potato farmer in Ohio? I disagree with this premise entierly. I understand the reasons for the original construction of the EC. Its a mixture of complex politics involving vying for power both by states and specific groups of people. Its also rooted in elitism and a distrust of democracy by our founders.

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.

Obama won the popular vote both times by a wide margin. There are only 2 times in recent history where the EC has voted against the popular vote. In 2000 with Geroge Bush and Al Gore (giving republicans the victory despite the American opposition) and again by a significantly larger margin in 2016 with Trump vs Hillary, yet again giving Republicans the victory despite not reciving a popular vote.

It has happened 3 other occasions. All in the 1800's.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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.

I disagree that land matters more as a whole. I agree that representation should matter and that is why we have the HOR. The presidency holds no specific reason to have a non-majority rule.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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.

It would remain the united states even if it was a popular vote. The rural areas would get votes all the same. Rural areas, while they TEND to be more conservative in nature, are not totally so. Many areas are 60/40 rather than 100/0 or evne 90/10. It should not be a battle of location but rather a battle of ideologies. That cannot happen if we use the EC as a buffer for the presidential election.

 

[idav]

It would remain the united states even if it was a popular vote. The rural areas would get votes all the same. Rural areas, while they TEND to be more conservative in nature, are not totally so. Many areas are 60/40 rather than 100/0 or evne 90/10. It should not be a battle of location but rather a battle of ideologies. That cannot happen if we use the EC as a buffer for the presidential election.

Exactly, Texas being 53 47 is hardly taking the red states by storm.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

Why do we urbanites need the vast farmlands anyway?
We get our food from supermarkets & lumber yards (Menards).
Who needs farms?

 

[Acim]

The argument posed is that rural America would be ruled by the more populated urban America. The argument is that those rural voices needed to be enhanced in order to have a say in our politics. This is mostly based off of a myth but to humor the point I asked if rural America outnumbered Urban America would they be in favor of increasing the voting power of urban America in order to have their voices heard?

Increasing it how? Based on what?

The crux of the piont was me wondering if it was just bias because they wanted their votes inflated or if it was actually important to them in some way.

How are the two different? Isn't the latter going to be bias?

My main point at the begining of the argument is why any vote shoulc count more than anothers. Why does a Hawaiian vote cout more or less than a Wisconson vote? Why does a vote in NYC count less than the vote of a potato farmer in Ohio? I disagree with this premise entierly. I understand the reasons for the original construction of the EC. Its a mixture of complex politics involving vying for power both by states and specific groups of people. Its also rooted in elitism and a distrust of democracy by our founders.

I see it being based on the land, along with population occupying the land. Alaska is the only state that throws me for a loop considering it is by far the largest state in the union (with not even a close second). But because it is sparsely populated, more so than any other state, it gets one vote less than Rhode Island, the smallest state in the union.

I think it is obvious that population centers have different concerns than rural areas. I think we are past the concern of populated areas ruling rural America, and have seen that already occurring, with pushback. IMO, if it were popular vote that determined POTUS, I think that land would be ignored, or considered in the vein of a novelty that would be seen (by the majority) as no reason to live there. The rural vote would theoretically be equal to each individual in urban America, but the proportion would be such that we already know, today, how that would play out.

So, if entertaining hypotheticals, imagine if somehow urban centers were somehow not permitted, or limited. Meaning within any location of the U.S. (say 30 square miles), there can be nor more than say 200,000 people. Under that type of scenario, I could possibly see reason for popular vote. Not saying I'd for sure go along with it, but it would make it so concerns are spread more evenly and relatively the same.

Obama won the popular vote both times by a wide margin. There are only 2 times in recent history where the EC has voted against the popular vote. In 2000 with Geroge Bush and Al Gore (giving republicans the victory despite the American opposition) and again by a significantly larger margin in 2016 with Trump vs Hillary, yet again giving Republicans the victory despite not reciving a popular vote.

It has happened 3 other occasions. All in the 1800's.

It strikes me as bias the other way this time around. That Dems realize they won the popular vote, based on idea that they 'own' population centers, and are expressing disgust with EC, downplaying any possible importance it might have. I think getting rid of EC is a hypothetical discussion, and closer to myth than whatever people currently think of problems with EC. But here I am in the middle of that discussion. I'm thinking if urban centers flipped to all red, and rural areas were all blue, that Dems would love the EC and hope it continues indefinitely.

 

[Acim]

I disagree that land matters more as a whole.

Okay, then we disagree.

 

[idav]

Okay, then we disagree.

It's like saying land owners matter more.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Okay, then we disagree.

For the sake of argument why should someone living on five acers matter more than a person living in an apartment?

 

[Acim]

It would remain the united states even if it was a popular vote. The rural areas would get votes all the same. Rural areas, while they TEND to be more conservative in nature, are not totally so. Many areas are 60/40 rather than 100/0 or evne 90/10. It should not be a battle of location but rather a battle of ideologies. That cannot happen if we use the EC as a buffer for the presidential election.

I think if we went to popular vote, the writing would be on the wall (or in the legal books) to show why it truly is in your best interest to congregate with like-minded people in population centers. I think it could take 100 years to play out, but would be seen in 12 years or less how it will trend out. Candidates would then just go to the population centers, and whatever their concerns are, promise them the moon. Not all that different to how things are now in terms of campaign promises, but different in how we congregate and why. I could see (after a few decades) working the land as being considered the lowest form of work, and it truly being a novelty to visit there. Now considering that the land is where we get all of our food and resources from (unless imported from another country), it would be a travesty to go in that direction. Perhaps it wouldn't be, but I'm glad we aren't really all that close to finding out who's right about this.

 

[Acim]

It's like saying land owners matter more.

Exactly like that.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Increasing it how? Based on what?

The electroal college does not divy out perfectly calibrated proportions for votes. In fact in many ways it is by extreme degree changes. I believe its somewhere that Wisconson has almost a dozen times more value of a vote per electroal college vote than California or some other state. I don't remember the two states in question that show the largest difference but the disparity exists and it always favors rurally poppulated states.

How are the two different? Isn't the latter going to be bias?

I don't think that the 2 house system with HOR and senate is a bias. It is a functional system with good reasons behind it. If someone supported the HOR because they know they can gerrymand districts to get a disproportional value out of it then it would be biased rather than objective.

The question is do the conservatives that support the EC support it becasue they agree with the mechanism or becasue it tends to benifit them?

I see it being based on the land, along with population occupying the land. Alaska is the only state that throws me for a loop considering it is by far the largest state in the union (with not even a close second). But because it is sparsely populated, more so than any other state, it gets one vote less than Rhode Island, the smallest state in the union.

And why would that be an issue?

I think it is obvious that population centers have different concerns than rural areas. I think we are past the concern of populated areas ruling rural America, and have seen that already occurring, with pushback. IMO, if it were popular vote that determined POTUS, I think that land would be ignored, or considered in the vein of a novelty that would be seen (by the majority) as no reason to live there. The rural vote would theoretically be equal to each individual in urban America, but the proportion would be such that we already know, today, how that would play out.

I don't think we do. I also disagree that the concerns of the rural and urban are issues that affect the presidency and how it should be voted upon.

So, if entertaining hypotheticals, imagine if somehow urban centers were somehow not permitted, or limited. Meaning within any location of the U.S. (say 30 square miles), there can be nor more than say 200,000 people. Under that type of scenario, I could possibly see reason for popular vote. Not saying I'd for sure go along with it, but it would make it so concerns are spread more evenly and relatively the same.

Why does that make a difference?

It strikes me as bias the other way this time around. That Dems realize they won the popular vote, based on idea that they 'own' population centers, and are expressing disgust with EC, downplaying any possible importance it might have. I think getting rid of EC is a hypothetical discussion, and closer to myth than whatever people currently think of problems with EC. But here I am in the middle of that discussion. I'm thinking if urban centers flipped to all red, and rural areas were all blue, that Dems would love the EC and hope it continues indefinitely.

I am not a democrat. Just a casual fan of democracy within republics. Doesn't matter to me which way the wind blows. I imagine dems and pubs would favor whichever one better suited their agenda. I feel that it is irrelevant to the conversation.

 

[idav]

Exactly like that.

Why should land matter more than the voice of the people?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I think if we went to popular vote, the writing would be on the wall (or in the legal books) to show why it truly is in your best interest to congregate with like-minded people in population centers. I think it could take 100 years to play out, but would be seen in 12 years or less how it will trend out. Candidates would then just go to the population centers, and whatever their concerns are, promise them the moon. Not all that different to how things are now in terms of campaign promises, but different in how we congregate and why. I could see (after a few decades) working the land as being considered the lowest form of work, and it truly being a novelty to visit there. Now considering that the land is where we get all of our food and resources from (unless imported from another country), it would be a travesty to go in that direction. Perhaps it wouldn't be, but I'm glad we aren't really all that close to finding out who's right about this.

Highly doubtful. Such an obvious ploy to better citties at the expensive of rural areas wouldn't fly in today's politics. Regional favoritism died out a while back.

But lets say you are right. Why does the govenors of each state do the same? In florida for example one need only win Tallahasee, Jacksonville, Orlando and Tampa/St. Petersberg areas. Then boom. Win. Screw the rural areas and even screw Miami which is a vastly different demographic. But we don't see that. Why do we not see that in Texas, Rhode Island, New york? New York govenor only needs win New York city. Why do they not promise a single city the world?

Because corrupt biased people don't win big elections anymore.

 

[Acim]

For the sake of argument why should someone living on five acers matter more than a person living in an apartment?

Outside of concerns for a country, I can't think of a reason why. Within context of a country, it shows one is more invested in the thing that makes for the country. It's both land and people. I think land matters more to country than people within that context. Outside of the context, and going with philosophical or spiritual frameworks, I'd have different claims.

Landowners are stewards to their property. POTUS is one big steward to the land known as the USA. People leasing aren't to be ignored, but downplayed in favor of ownership, as that relates to country, I think is a given. Not sure if its ever been different in world history. Perhaps superficially so in some regions.

The kicker, for me, in all this is I would prefer to lease rather than own, but am basing that on my experience (done both) and on spiritual/philosophical considerations.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Outside of concerns for a country, I can't think of a reason why. Within context of a country, it shows one is more invested in the thing that makes for the country. It's both land and people. I think land matters more to country than people within that context. Outside of the context, and going with philosophical or spiritual frameworks, I'd have different claims.

Landowners are stewards to their property. POTUS is one big steward to the land known as the USA. People leasing aren't to be ignored, but downplayed in favor of ownership, as that relates to country, I think is a given. Not sure if its ever been different in world history. Perhaps superficially so in some regions.

The kicker, for me, in all this is I would prefer to lease rather than own, but am basing that on my experience (done both) and on spiritual/philosophical considerations.

Is there evidence for this claim? If an MD lives in an apartment or hell even owns his own condo should he matter less than the disabled hillbilly that inheritied his basically worthless land and spends most of his time making meth?

You make broad claims that I don't see panning out. Land ownership isn't a reflection of ones worth. Nor is it a reflection of one's value in the community. The idea itself is inheritied from the Brittish class society wherein landlords were powerful people. In early American history where land was cheap and often given away to those willing to kill natives for it the concept remained. People who were Brittish that could never have held the social status of landlord in England now owns his own plot of land in the Americas. In fact the south held up this exact type of bias for many generations. It was deeply cultruized despite not being true. Part of this led to the civil war.

I don't know if you have adopted this view from there or if it is something you have adopted from elswhere. But the bottom line is it is faulty.

 

[Acim]

The electroal college does not divy out perfectly calibrated proportions for votes. In fact in many ways it is by extreme degree changes. I believe its somewhere that Wisconson has almost a dozen times more value of a vote per electroal college vote than California or some other state. I don't remember the two states in question that show the largest difference but the disparity exists and it always favors rurally poppulated states.

This doesn't answer the question asked. I'm currently not even sure what you mean by rurally populated states. Perhaps you could use Alaska and Rhode Island to make your points as that I think helps make things more clear.

I don't think that the 2 house system with HOR and senate is a bias. It is a functional system with good reasons behind it. If someone supported the HOR because they know they can gerrymand districts to get a disproportional value out of it then it would be biased rather than objective.

This definitely doesn't answer the question.

The question is do the conservatives that support the EC support it becasue they agree with the mechanism or becasue it tends to benifit them?

In the last 24 years, it's benefited Pubs for a whole 8 years. Wow! Huge benefit there. Because Dems can't have all 24 years, there's reason to moan? To complain about the system?

And why would that be an issue?

Because the land of Alaska is seemingly way under valued. I don't think it actually is, but it seems a bit like that when the largest state (by far) is getting one less vote than the smallest state. Thus, whatever my take is on this, I realize there's another way of understanding this, where people do seem to matter more than land. But I think its both matter, and that land ought to matter more to likes of POTUS, while all other positions of responsibility ought to perhaps have attitude of people mattering slightly more than land.

I also disagree that the concerns of the rural and urban are issues that affect the presidency and how it should be voted upon.

Why does that make a difference?

Because rural and urban makeup are issues that affect the presidency. Whereas, if everyone in the land was more evenly spread out, then all concerns would likely be about the same, rather than disproportionate based on how close people are together.

 

[Acim]

Why should land matter more than the voice of the people?

Because it is country we are talking about. Both should matter.

 

[Acim]

Highly doubtful. Such an obvious ploy to better citties at the expensive of rural areas wouldn't fly in today's politics. Regional favoritism died out a while back.

Thus, you are making my point. I don't think those living and actually working the land are under the impression their way of life has died out. But if population was all that mattered, then I think it could go that way. So, you say highly doubtful, and I say very likely. I'm sure you're up for finding out. I'm not.

But lets say you are right. Why does the govenors of each state do the same? In florida for example one need only win Tallahasee, Jacksonville, Orlando and Tampa/St. Petersberg areas. Then boom. Win. Screw the rural areas and even screw Miami which is a vastly different demographic. But we don't see that. Why do we not see that in Texas, Rhode Island, New york? New York govenor only needs win New York city. Why do they not promise a single city the world?

I actually think they do. To the degree they don't, I think it's cause of the notion that at most important level of government in the U.S. (POTUS), the opposite is true, and so they play the political game of pretending rural matters. Unless their conservative and they realize how valuable land and resources are to governing.

Because corrupt biased people don't win big elections anymore.

Now, you're just being funny.

 

[idav]

Because it is country we are talking about. Both should matter.

Shouldn't the the voice of the entire country count for something or are we a bunch of little nations?