Why The Electoral College Is Fair

[BSM1]

The only way to make the voting system fair, that is, for every vote to carry the same weight, is for it to be a 100% popular vote model.

Go look at the map of states won by Hillary (17). That means Trump won 33 states. If you wanted to count just the popular vote then a candidate would only have to win (and promise the moon to) a third of the states. This is exactly why the EC was put into place and why it is more relevant today than when it was conceived.

 

[Kartari]

I think the logic stated in the OP in support of the Electoral College is flawed. Regardless of where a person resides (urban, rural, big state, small state), in a popular vote all votes equally count. The idea that only several cities would count is flat out wrong. All votes would be tallied with equal weight, so every voice in the nation would count with equal weight.

If the intent is to have a democratically elected president, then a pure popular vote makes the most sense. Democracy is government by and for the people. Democracy is NOT by and for the states, which is what the EC warps the democratic process into to a very significant extent. That is characteristic of a republican form of government instead, and a republic is just an elite-controlled state or nation. There's a long history behind the system we have today, going all the way back to the original constitution which actually placed the election of the president and vice president solely in the hands of an (mostly wealthy white male elite) elected congress and the then-state-appointed (not elected) senators (the United States was not founded as a democracy, but as a republic with very limited democratic features, contrary to popular belief; we've instead been approaching a democratic ideal throughout US history). The EC has continued to its present form as a way to cater to some old concerns which no longer really apply.

Or should no longer apply... I think the inspiration behind these common arguments in defense of the EC is the way in which presidential candidates conduct their campaigns. Candidates travel throughout key areas (not all areas, as another poster rightly mentioned already) making speeches to impress the people local to each area. If the EC were abolished in favor of a pure popular vote, this would probably shift this present method of campaigning to indeed focus on several key cities. But this problem can be resolved with serious campaign finance reform. At present, candidates are funded by a combination of personal wealth (an implicit requirement to be both rich and biased towards your personal financial interests), corporate contributions (ensuring candidates are beholden to their corporate sponsors rather than the people, thus subverting democracy), and individual contributions (also problematic as it gives greater voice to those with more money than others). This system enables money to be transferred into political clout, which is a subversion or corruption of democracy. But if we criminalized all private campaign contributions, and eliminated the entire model of candidate campaigning throughout the nation, and instead simply set aside a small public fund for the candidates to have a series of publicly televised debates as well as maintain informative websites, this would not only criminalize a ginormous source of our governmental corruption but would eliminate the need for the EC. The presidency is a national governmental position anyway: as another poster already mentioned, strictly local interests would best be dealt with by local government officials. Also, on a related but perhaps a side note, I am in favor of abolishing political parties: too many people vote for their team like they're playing football, while the parties themselves are a subversion of democracy via their control over the candidate pool. Eliminating the parties would force candidates to run more on their individual ideas, rather than by how well they conform to the dictates of their party.

I could go on, but I'll stop myself here.

 

[Quetzal]

Go look at the map of states won by Hillary (17). That means Trump won 33 states. If you wanted to count just the popular vote then a candidate would only have to win (and promise the moon to) a third of the states. This is exactly why the EC was put into place and why it is more relevant today than when it was conceived.

States are irrelevant without population density information. Right now, candidates only have to pander to a handful of states anyway. This problem is present in both models but less so in popular vote because it gives all votes equal weight. Which the current system does not do.

 

[Iti oj]

Go look at the map of states won by Hillary (17). That means Trump won 33 states. If you wanted to count just the popular vote then a candidate would only have to win (and promise the moon to) a third of the states. This is exactly why the EC was put into place and why it is more relevant today than when it was conceived.

That's not how states Work. different parts of states vote differently and want different things.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Good thing the USA wasn't designed to be a pure democracy in that sense then, the founding fathers themselves were wary of the 'tyranny of the majority'. Indeed, the Senate was modelled on the House of Lords we have here in the UK, and was at first unelected like ours is.

Our system was designed around preventing Southern/slave states from getting too much power, by default, over having a larger population due to slave populations. It's why the 3/5 Compromise is also in the Constitution. Gerrymandering is also in the Constitution, but we are clearly seeing how it can be used to an erect a major barrier for the opposing party to overcome.
We have a system were most votes cast do not matter. We have a system of Democracy for those who voted for the winner, with everyone else having no representation. The UK has a system where parties are awarded seats based on votes. Our system is "winner takes all," and it means election after election after election my vote goes without any weight of consideration since I am a far Leftist living in a deeply Conservative area.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's not how states Work. different parts of states vote differently and want different things.

Washington state is a good example. The Eastern part tends to vote Republican, while the coastal/Western part votes Democrat. This is also very apparent in Florida.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The reason it was created is simple. The northern politicans knew that there were far more southern white men owning land. Agriculture was the base of the southern economy white that was not the base of the Northern Economy. The south would win by a landslide whatever president they wanted because of the clause saying land owning white men had all the power. So instead they decided that disproportionally inflated EC votes for the smaller northern states would give them an advantage in the Presidential election.

Currently its meaning is lost. We have diversity in most of the states. We have a diversity of ideas in all our cities. Everyone can vote. The North East isn't loosing the population race.

No candidate is going to get away with favoring Texas, California and New York. Politics for the president are not based on local state issues anymore. During the time of the early American History state governments were constantly vying and fighting for power. We don't see Georgia attempting to get an economic leg up on South Carolina anymore. The economies have evolved and the reasons for the EC are now gone.

So what does the EC claim to fix? People claim it fixes candidates having to focus on just a few states to win. What does the EC force? Making sure that candidates focus on a few states to win. The difference is that they would have to go for highly populated areas rather than swing states. That would be more difficult than getting a swing state.

 

[Nous]

The following was presented in reply to another topic in this section, but I thought it might be a good idea to give it it's own voice.

As far as the Electoral College issue, there are many who say it is the "fairest" means of electing a president. All you have to do is search for why and you will get many different articles. But the one that seems to say it best is from: Defending the EC
The statement from the article says: and I quote
.
Another Source says it this way: and I quote

Or picking from another Source


So as person living in a state that is considered a "rural" state I think my vote counts whereas without the EC a candidate would not have to worry about what I think they would only focus their attention on regions containing a large population say like NY, LA, Chicago, Dallas, or any other metropolitan area. And I do not think that the majority of the voters in those areas agree with my values or opinions, as was seen in this election.

This issue has already been discussed several times on this board. There is nothing "fair" about these facts:

In 2012, all 253 of the campaign events with major party presidential and vice presidential candidates that took place after the Democratic National Convention were in just 12 states. From April 11 through Election Day on November 6, 99.6% of all advertising spending by the major party campaigns and their allies was in just 10 states.

[. . . ]

The ten biggest net exporters of campaign donations were California, Illinois, New York, Texas, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, Washington, Georgia, Connecticut. Their residents were responsible for 57.2% of all donations to the two campaigns. In return, they received a total of 0.1% of campaign advertising spending during the peak campaign season​

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

What's fair is when every vote has equal weight--exactly like when you elect your state Governor. The electoral system of electing the President ensures that vote weight is unequal.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

It last happend in the UK in 1932 .... so it is almost as rare as hens teeth.

I'm not technically wrong, am I?

 

[fantome profane]

A 2nd election?
Ugh.

There is another way to do it without having a new election. If neither of the leading candidates manages to break 50% the third party candidate(s) can just decide to give their votes to one of them. The idea is that if you as a voter give your vote to Gary Johnson, he has your vote and can decide what to do with it. He can give it either to Trump or Clinton.

I am not saying you should do this, or not do this. But it is another way to do it.

 

[Jumi]

Even though I think it's a bad system you have, I still think it's "fair" when the rules are decided beforehand that the selection happens according to the rules. It would be "unfair" if the rules were changed after the fact.

 

[idav]

The following was presented in reply to another topic in this section, but I thought it might be a good idea to give it it's own voice.

As far as the Electoral College issue, there are many who say it is the "fairest" means of electing a president. All you have to do is search for why and you will get many different articles. But the one that seems to say it best is from: Defending the EC
The statement from the article says: and I quote
.
Another Source says it this way: and I quote

Or picking from another Source


So as person living in a state that is considered a "rural" state I think my vote counts whereas without the EC a candidate would not have to worry about what I think they would only focus their attention on regions containing a large population say like NY, LA, Chicago, Dallas, or any other metropolitan area. And I do not think that the majority of the voters in those areas agree with my values or opinions, as was seen in this election.

It's hogwash to assume Trump couldn't get his 2 million vote deficits from the 30 states he won. The electoral votes show that it is a broken system because it has the power to use land ownership to elect an un-favored president. 3 people shouldn't have votes count more just cause they have more acres than 5 people living in smaller lands.

 

[buddhist]

Hi Folks..

Seems very bizarre to me...Its SUPPOSED to be a DEMOCARCY - one vote for per adult head and all equal - majority rules - and yet - it turns out the MAJORITY of votes may not win after all....is that REALLY a democracy..??..

All this talk of regional viewpoints and different needs..?...Surely that is the province of your LOCAL state governments and NOT an issue of NATIONAL government..?...Its down to your local intermediary official to broker such things on your behalf yes..??.. You have LOCAL elections to work out your local issues, yes ..??..And those LOCAl officials are supposed to rpresent your best interests then...Isnt that what you have Senators and what not for..??...

If you are going to have one person elected leader who is to be in charge of all that, then it MUST be a MAJORITY decision ALWAYS, and ONLY a majority decision...If not then surely its not democracy at all...



Yes but your vote ALWAYS counted - except of course now you have to go ALONG with the system and AGREE that the MAJORITY vote wins regardless of whether that is YOUR vote or not...That is what DEMOCRACY is all about..!! Once the MAJORITY decide then no need for any other contrivance at all, and it doesnt matter WHERE that majority of voters live or anything else about them, except the fact they CHOSE and voted freely..

No, it's not supposed to be a democracy. These USA is a federation of 50 nations in the form of a Republic, or at least it's supposed to be - a government according to Law, not a government according to majority.

 

[Quetzal]

No, it's not supposed to be a democracy. These USA is a Republic, or at least it's supposed to be - a government according to Law, not a government according to majority.

You know whats cool? The EC is not mandated to vote for the candidate their constituents support. I would love to see a parallel universe where all of the pro-EC folks (who lecture us about all that is fair and just) lose their collective minds when the EC votes for the popular vote instead. Watch all of the rhetoric fly right out the window.

It won't happen, but it would be fun to see.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

With a popular vote, the states wouldn't matter. It would be the individual votes that matter. So talking about "big cities dominating rural areas" is irrelevant. It would be one person = one vote. Here in Ohio, most of the counties went red, even though Franklin County, where Columbus is (the largest metro area in the state), is deep blue. So Ohio went red because of that.

 

[buddhist]

You know whats cool? The EC is not mandated to vote for the candidate their constituents support. I would love to see a parallel universe where all of the pro-EC folks (who lecture us about all that is fair and just) lose their collective minds when the EC votes for the popular vote instead. Watch all of the rhetoric fly right out the window.

It won't happen, but it would be fun to see.

The Electors are obliged to follow the laws of their State which guides how they vote. Electors who transgress those laws would not be representing their respective State; it can then be argued that their votes are invalid.

 

[idav]

The only way to ensure one candidate always get a
majority would be to limit the election to only 2 parties.
I oppose that.

This isn't true, someone will always get a majority of votes. Plus we have primaries to elect the people who are running.

 

[Quetzal]

The Electors are obliged to follow the laws of their State which guides how they vote. Electors who transgress those laws would not be representing their respective State; it can then be argued that their votes are invalid.

No one is arguing, but my point still stands.

 

[buddhist]

No one is arguing, but my point still stands.

I'm pro-Elector ... or at least, I mean I am pro-State votes. There really isn't a need for individuals to act as Electors anymore now and travel by horseback to Washington to cast their votes. The States can now simply certify and announce their votes.

 

[idav]

With a popular vote, the states wouldn't matter. It would be the individual votes that matter. So talking about "big cities dominating rural areas" is irrelevant. It would be one person = one vote. Here in Ohio, most of the counties went red, even though Franklin County, where Columbus is (the largest metro area in the state), is deep blue. So Ohio went red because of that.

It would be quite interesting for a state to not go the way of the popular vote just because of county points pandering to larger locations. The electoral college can be viewed as counties, states can all go different directions but one should have to get the national vote to get the nation.