Why The Electoral College Is Fair

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Fair is an opinion and depends on the environment of each person

So your OP was just gum-flapping, eh?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Get over it....the Electoral College is here to stay for a long time.
The Electoral College is mandated under Article II Section 1 of the Constitution. The only way to do this is to amend the Constitution and that requires three quarters (38 at this time) of the States to approve. Do you really think that will happen given the outcome of the 2016 elections.

If Trump gets in the position Clinton and Obama found themselves in, with no control over Congress (which I think would give Trump another term), it wouldn't matter much with these election results.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Get over it....the Electoral College is here to stay for a long time.
The Electoral College is mandated under Article II Section 1 of the Constitution. The only way to do this is to amend the Constitution and that requires three quarters (38 at this time) of the States to approve. Do you really think that will happen given the outcome of the 2016 elections.

I do believe whether it should stay and whether it will stay are two separate issues.

"is it fair" and "is it likely to go away" are two very different questions.

I think I raised two reasonable objections regarding the fairness of it. Care to address either of them?

 

[esmith]

I do believe whether it should stay and whether it will stay are two separate issues.

"is it fair" and "is it likely to go away" are two very different questions.

I think I raised two reasonable objections regarding the fairness of it. Care to address either of them?

Let's put it this way.
When I look at the county by county map of the results of the 2016 election I see it this way. The majority of the people residing in these counties determined the outcome of the election whereas the popular vote was concentrated in a cluster of areas whose ideas are probably considerably foreign to those that elected the President. I see this as a positive.
In other words I liked the outcome of the election even though I expected it to turn out different and wouldn't change a thing.
The President represent all of the States. Congress represents the people of their district. What we had during the Obama years was a President who represented the popular vote and a Congress that represented the people. In the next 4 years we will have a President who represent the people of the majority of States and not a President who represented a popularity contest. We have seen during the past 8 years that the liberal/progressive ideals have been rejected. That is why the Democrats have lost over 1000 seats throughout the country.
Rambling but sometimes it hard to put ideas down on paper.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Let's put it this way.
When I look at the county by county map of the results of the 2016 election I see it this way. The majority of the people residing in these counties determined the outcome of the election whereas the popular vote was concentrated in a cluster of areas whose ideas are probably considerably foreign to those that elected the President. I see this as a positive.
In other words I liked the outcome of the election even though I expected it to turn out different and wouldn't change a thing.
The President represent all of the States. Congress represents the people of their district. What we had during the Obama years was a President who represented the popular vote and a Congress that represented the people. In the next 4 years we will have a President who represent the people of the majority of States and not a President who represented a popularity contest. We have seen during the past 8 years that the liberal/progressive ideals have been rejected. That is why the Democrats have lost over 1000 seats throughout the country.
Rambling but sometimes it hard to put ideas down on paper.

My response to that is to say that I believe that if the rules were different, the game would be played differently. The red voters in blue states, blue voters in red states, more overall voters who will freely express themselves. Because more voters will become important, the concerns of voters from more states will become important. And the will of the people will be heard.

The clusters wouldn't matter as much because they're not competing against the rest of their state anymore. They'd be competing with the rest of the country.

Keep in mind that if all eligible voters voted, and all voters from NY and CA voted for the Democrat, this would account for 12% of the popular vote.

Meanwhile, the EC that we have wrongly assumes that all people (including non-voters) vote, and it wrongly assumes that all people from any given state vote the same way, and NY and CA have a combined share of 15% of the electoral vote.

Seems to me that the true voice of this nation would be heard better if we gave the people their own vote.

 

[esmith]

My response to that is to say that I believe that if the rules were different, the game would be played differently. The red voters in blue states, blue voters in red states, more overall voters who will freely express themselves. Because more voters will become important, the concerns of voters from more states will become important. And the will of the people will be heard.

The clusters wouldn't matter as much because they're not competing against the rest of their state anymore. They'd be competing with the rest of the country.

Keep in mind that if all eligible voters voted, and all voters from NY and CA voted for the Democrat, this would account for 12% of the popular vote.

Meanwhile, the EC that we have wrongly assumes that all people (including non-voters) vote, and it wrongly assumes that all people from any given state vote the same way, and NY and CA have a combined share of 15% of the electoral vote.

Seems to me that the true voice of this nation would be heard better if we gave the people their own vote.

Well not sure if your idea is right or not. Not "right" as being the right thing to do but right in the concept. The only way it could be proven is to keep the Electoral College but change how the electors are chosen.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Well not sure if your idea is right or not. Not "right" as being the right thing to do but right in the concept. The only way it could be proven is to keep the Electoral College but change how the electors are chosen.

My first recommendation would be to get rid of appointing electors based on population.

Appoint electors based on voter turnout.

That way, the people who vote will be the people who affect the outcome of the election.

It irks me that 14 million Californians compete for the amount of electoral votes that represent 32 million people, in a state where 39 million people live.

It's ridiculous that we have a system that lets this happen.

 

[Poisonshady313]

My second recommendation is to have states allocate their electors proportionally instead of winner take all.

 

[1137]

You know what's fair? Treating individuals and their vote as equals, giving them all equal considerations.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My first recommendation would be to get rid of appointing electors based on population.

Appoint electors based on voter turnout.

That way, the people who vote will be the people who affect the outcome of the election.

It irks me that 14 million Californians compete for the amount of electoral votes that represent 32 million people, in a state where 39 million people live.

It's ridiculous that we have a system that lets this happen.

You know, I know a system where only the voters who actually vote are reflected in the result: electing based on popular vote.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

My second recommendation is to have states allocate their electors proportionally instead of winner take all.

Doing that would probably boost our voter turnout way more than anything else would. It almost makes you feel like giving up when your state is one of the first ones called, make you one of the first ones in the nation to know officially your vote doesn't count and won't matter - congratulations, you wasted your time.

 

[esmith]

Doing that would probably boost our voter turnout way more than anything else would. It almost makes you feel like giving up when your state is one of the first ones called, make you one of the first ones in the nation to know officially your vote doesn't count and won't matter - congratulations, you wasted your time.

Hate to bust your bubble, but if that is true then why is it that voter turnout in National elections are larger than those for statewide elections?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Hate to bust your bubble, but if that is true then why is it that voter turnout in National elections are larger than those for statewide elections?

That doesn't really even address my point. Even considering National elections have a higher turnout rate, it's still a pathetically low rate. People tend to not like knowing their vote is really nothing more than wasting time and effort, and some places are so safe that even if your vote is counted it's so secure you don't even need to make the effort.

 

[esmith]

That doesn't really even address my point. Even considering National elections have a higher turnout rate, it's still a pathetically low rate. People tend to not like knowing their vote is really nothing more than wasting time and effort, and some places are so safe that even if your vote is counted it's so secure you don't even need to make the effort.

You didn't answer the question.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You didn't answer the question.

Your question wasn't addressed to my point. Even if the rates where equal, we still have a voter turnout that is, at best, embarrassing.

 

[esmith]

Doing that would probably boost our voter turnout way more than anything else would. It almost makes you feel like giving up when your state is one of the first ones called, make you one of the first ones in the nation to know officially your vote doesn't count and won't matter - congratulations, you wasted your time.

Your question wasn't addressed to my point. Even if the rates where equal, we still have a voter turnout that is, at best, embarrassing.

My question was why it would increase the turnout for Presidential elections when we know for a fact that the turnout for statewide elections are less. Your conjecture that if everyone "thought" their vote would mean more is invalid.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

My question was why it would increase the turnout for Presidential elections when we know for a fact that the turnout for statewide elections are less. Your conjecture that if everyone "thought" their vote would mean more is invalid.

Because, right now, many many people, probably most, their vote doesn't matter and doesn't count because it gets discarded entirely if their candidate does not win the state. Or, it's such a sure bet their candidate will win, why bother? Their is nothing proportional or proportionate about our election system, and it's good for disenfranchising voters who have not a chance of having their views represented.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Hate to bust your bubble, but if that is true then why is it that voter turnout in National elections are larger than those for statewide elections?

Because people generally don't care (as much as they should) about statewide elections. They don't know or care who's running... many are oblivious to when statewide elections take place. There's not nearly as much press, not nearly as much anticipation, and in the minds of many, not nearly as much at stake in a statewide election.

But for all the enthusiasm for the presidential election, nearly half of all eligible voters don't bother because they know their vote doesn't matter.

California. 75% voter turnout.
Florida 74% voter turnout.
New York. 62% voter turnout.
Texas 42% voter turnout.

It's no big secret that the only votes that truly matter are those in swing states.

Make every vote matter, and you'll see more people participating in the process.