Why The Electoral College Is Fair

[esmith]

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.

Where do you come up with this idea about land owners. I'd say but I'm trying to be nice.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't see how that works. Also interesting you think the American system hasn't done that already.

With only 2 candidates, one will always get at least one vote over 50% (a majority).
With 3, it's possible for each to earn less than 50%, ie, one could get a plurality without getting a majority.

 

[idav]

Where do you come up with this idea about land owners. I'd say but I'm trying to be nice.

It's not literally land owners but essentially your argument is that it's the amount of land that is covered should have more power than the votes in smaller lands/ larger cities.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

Yet another way.....
When we vote, we can vote for a 2nd choice for prez in case of no majority.
This wouldn't solve all possible scenarios though.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

That's really not much different than a watered down EC, with one person getting to decide how many votes are counted.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

And the Electors are basically already saying my vote doesn't count and is invalid.

 

[idav]

With only 2 candidates, one will always get at least one vote over 50% (a majority).
With 3, it's possible for each to earn less than 50%, ie, one could get a plurality without getting a majority.

This is an issue in the current system if and when a third party could actually pull more votes and actually pull in states.

 

[Revoltingest]

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

Who has a majority in this election?

It might be a matter of definition of "majority"
Ref....
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/majority

 

[Rational Agnostic]

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.

Actually with EC, if you live in a state like California (very liberal) or Oklahoma (very conservative) your vote is NOT going to count if you belong to the minority party.

 

[idav]

Who has a majority in this election?

It might be a matter of definition of "majority"
Ref....
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/majority

Person getting most votes.

So how does electoral college fix something not even actually occurring as per your definition of majority. We are just pretending someone is getting a majority of the nation.

 

[Revoltingest]

Person getting most votes.

So how does electoral college fix something not even actually occurring as per your definition of majority. We are just pretending someone is getting a majority of the nation.

A majority is more than half of the votes.
A plurality is to win the most votes, but less than a majority.

 

[buddhist]

And the Electors are basically already saying my vote doesn't count and is invalid.

Your vote counts as far as it contributes to directing the State to vote in a specific way.

 

[idav]

A majority is more than half of the votes.
A plurality is to win the most votes, but less than a majority.

The electoral system doesn't solve this, just pretends to solve it.

 

[Quetzal]

Your vote counts as far as it contributes to directing the State to vote in a specific way.

Wouldn't it be better if your vote actually contributed to the election in a direct way regardless of how your state leans? Doesn't that sound more meaningful? More accurate?

 

[Revoltingest]

Wouldn't it be better if your vote actually contributed to the election in a direct way regardless of how your state leans? Doesn't that sound more meaningful? More accurate?

It depends on what we're trying to achieve.
Direct voting is simple (I think), & everyone's vote has the same value.
The EC preserves power of less populous states.
Neither is right or wrong.

 

[Quetzal]

It depends on what we're trying to achieve.
Direct voting is simple (I think), & everyone's vote has the same value.
The EC preserves power of less populous states.
Neither is right or wrong.

I guess the problem comes when some votes mean nothing. That is an issue and we can do better.

 

[buddhist]

Wouldn't it be better if your vote actually contributed to the election in a direct way regardless of how your state leans? Doesn't that sound more meaningful? More accurate?

No it isn't better, because the President is irrelevant to the direct lives of the People of the States.

As originally designed, the President leads the confederation of States. The federal government's - and thus its President's - only role is to 1. ensure the protection of the borders for the several States, and 2. to regulate commerce between the nation-States. Therefore, the Presidential election is a concern for the State(s) as a whole, not for the Peoples/Citizens of the various States. The only exception is D.C. and U.S. Territories, where the President and Congress functions effectively as the sovereign Governor and State Legislature for those territories and its (United States) citizens.

Regulation of everything else is left internally for the sovereign nation-States and State citizens.

 

[idav]

I guess the problem comes when some votes mean nothing. That is an issue and we can do better.

That's it, with this election we may as well be throwing over 2 million votes in the trash.

 

[Quetzal]

That's it, with this election we may as well be throwing over 2 million votes in the trash.

When you tell someone "Your vote would count for something... if you moved three states over and two north", what do you expect them to say? Why should their vote be effectively silenced due to geographic location?

 

[Quetzal]

No it isn't better, because the President is irrelevant to the direct lives of the People of the States.

Oh really? Are you sure you want to take that position?