Why The Electoral College Is Fair

[freethinker44]

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

Instead of voting for a winner we could implement a rating system where the candidate with the highest average rating wins.

 

[Katzpur]

It would take the electoral votes of the 16 states having the least number of votes to offset the electoral votes of the one state having the greatest number of electoral votes, and yet the total population of these 16 states far surpasses the population of the one largest state, how anyone can see this system as fair is beyond me. I have been appalled at the way the electoral college works since I learned about it in 8th grade American history about a hundred years ago. I remember our teacher explaining to us how ALL of the electoral votes of a state go to the party that got the majority of the popular vote. I just sat there looking at him and saying, "But, but, but... that's not fair!!! Why shouldn't my vote count as much as someone's vote who lives in New York or California?" All of my fellow students looked at me and said, "Of course it's fair. New York and California have more people than Utah. Duh!" My teacher nodded at me and said, "Yup. You get it. they don't."

 

[Katzpur]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/266038556504494082

Sorry couldn't resist.

As much as I detest Trump, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Obviously, Trump is going to say something intelligent once in a while.

 

[Revoltingest]

Instead of voting for a winner we could implement a rating system where the candidate with the highest average rating wins.

I bet the fighting over that one would be particularly vicious.
If something is complicated, people will be reluctant to understand.

 

[freethinker44]

I bet the fighting over that one would be particularly vicious.
If something is complicated, people will be reluctant to understand.

You are probably right.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It would be a larger issue if this was a democracy instead of a republic.

It depends on how it is implemented. Proportionate representation, for example, by awarding seats based on votes rather than having a winner take all does have more votes being counted, considered, and weighted.

 

[Kartari]

Hi buddhist and esmith,

And this goes out to anyone else who favors the EC based on the state representation argument (My eyes just happened to catch these two posts).

It would be a larger issue if this was a democracy instead of a republic.

One could look at the President as a representative of the States and the Congress as a representative of the people.
In other words the President represents the States and is chosen by a vote of each State, thus insuring that a majority of States dictate who becomes President and is the Executive branch of government and can not make laws.
The Congress is the legislative branch and is tasked with making laws and the citizens select who speaks for them.
Again the President speaks for the Country (read all States) and the Congress speak for the citizens.

Probably not expressing my thoughts clearly....still stuffed on yesterdays meals.

The United States, as per the Constitution, was indeed designed to be as you both describe.

Yet the Founders did foresee and understand that we would wish to alter the Constitution, and provided the Amendment process. And so, notwithstanding the original document and its original 10 amendments, Americans have been altering our political system towards a more universal and democratic nation ever since the Constitution's ratification. It was indeed originally a republic, with very limited democratic features (and purposely so; contrary to popular opinion today, democracy was a dirty word to the Founders' generation). But the US expanded over time towards a more universal concept of who should have citizenship rights, which came to include poor white male voters (state property qualifications for voting were first repealed under Jackson's 1820's presidency), then blacks and other non-white voters (for a short time as per the 13th and 14th Constitutional amendments soon after the Civil War, and enforced in practice once more during the 1960's after around a century of intimidation and segregation policies), and women (with the 1920 19th Constitutional amendment).

More to the point concerning the drive to democratize the federal government, while congress was originally elected by the (rich white male) population directly, senators were appointed by the states, and both congress and the senate originally elected the president and vice president. The 12th Amendment was passed to alter the process, letting the people elect the president and the VP with the EC rules as we continue to do so now. And the 17th Amendment of 1913 altered the rules for senators, so that the people elect them directly as we continue to now.

Here are my questions for you both. Considering your statements of concern for ensuring the presidency is representative of the states, would you prefer to see us repeal the 12th Amendment? And while we're at it, what do you think of repealing the 17th Amendment?

Imo, the drive towards more democracy is a very positive one as it best represents the will of the people. I am curious to know what you both think, however.

 

[buddhist]

Hi buddhist and esmith,

And this goes out to anyone else who favors the EC based on the state representation argument (My eyes just happened to catch these two posts).





The United States, as per the Constitution, was indeed designed to be as you both describe.

Yet the Founders did foresee and understand that we would wish to alter the Constitution, and provided the Amendment process. And so, notwithstanding the original document and its original 10 amendments, Americans have been altering our political system towards a more universal and democratic nation ever since the Constitution's ratification. It was indeed originally a republic, with very limited democratic features (and purposely so; contrary to popular opinion today, democracy was a dirty word to the Founders' generation). But the US expanded over time towards a more universal concept of who should have citizenship rights, which came to include poor white male voters (state property qualifications for voting were first repealed under Jackson's 1820's presidency), then blacks and other non-white voters (for a short time as per the 13th and 14th Constitutional amendments soon after the Civil War, and enforced in practice once more during the 1960's after around a century of intimidation and segregation policies), and women (with the 1920 19th Constitutional amendment).

More to the point concerning the drive to democratize the federal government, while congress was originally elected by the (rich white male) population directly, senators were appointed by the states, and both congress and the senate originally elected the president and vice president. The 12th Amendment was passed to alter the process, letting the people elect the president and the VP with the EC rules as we continue to do so now. And the 17th Amendment of 1913 altered the rules for senators, so that the people elect them directly as we continue to now.

Here are my questions for you both. Considering your statements of concern for ensuring the presidency is representative of the states, would you prefer to see us repeal the 12th Amendment? And while we're at it, what do you think of repealing the 17th Amendment?

Imo, the drive towards more democracy is a very positive one as it best represents the will of the people. I am curious to know what you both think, however.

Rule by Law is superior to Rule by Mob.

Regarding the amendments: I'd rather revert back to the original format (and thus repeal the 12th Amendment); I don't believe that amendments after the 13th were properly ratified by the Republic.

 

[Augustus]

It depends on how it is implemented. Proportionate representation, for example, by awarding seats based on votes rather than having a winner take all does have more votes being counted, considered, and weighted.

If this was the case then all votes in all states would matter. A Dem could meaningfully campaign in Texas and a Pub could meaningfully campaign in Cali.

It would be similar to a popular vote, but with weighting to keep smaller states more relevant. Seems like a good balance.

 

[Koldo]

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.

As far as I understand your political system, Democrats and Republicans can just completely ignore ( at least at short-term ) certain states because they have no winning chance on them either way. In the other hand, if the election's result was decided by the majority's vote then both parties would have more of a reason to seek a compromise with those states.

 

[esmith]

As far as I understand your political system, Democrats and Republicans can just completely ignore ( at least at short-term ) certain states because they have no winning chance on them either way. In the other hand, if the election's result was decided by the majority's vote then both parties would have more of a reason to seek a compromise with those states.

No, the candidates would concentrate on those states that have the highest population base that would give them a majority. Elections rules are always bad if you lose and good if you win; therefore there is totally "fair" answer.

 

[Prestor John]

Well, I like having an Electoral College. Even when my candidate lost, I still liked having an Electoral College.

A majority vote would further marginalize minorities.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No, the candidates would concentrate on those states that have the highest population base that would give them a majority. Elections rules are always bad if you lose and good if you win; therefore there is totally "fair" answer.

So they go from focusing on a few states like Ohio and Florida to focusing on a few cities like New York and Seattle. How is that really that big of a difference? And why would this be a bad thing?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well, I like having an Electoral College. Even when my candidate lost, I still liked having an Electoral College.

A majority vote would further marginalize minorities.

By putting Pence that close to that much power, the EC has put minorities at a high-risk level of being marginalized.

 

[Prestor John]

By putting Pence that close to that much power, the EC has put minorities at a high-risk level of being marginalized.

How is that?

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, I like having an Electoral College. Even when my candidate lost, I still liked having an Electoral College.

A majority vote would further marginalize minorities.

All systems will marginalize minorities, just different ones to different extents.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

How is that?

Because Pence is one of the Republicans leading the charge to overturn Obergefell v Hodges, allow religious bigotry to supersede civil liberties, and strip and prevent LBGT-rights.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

All systems will marginalize minorities, just different ones to different extents.

While that is technically true, do all such groups deserve any shred of sympathy? If the Klan feels marginalized and like America just doesn't reflect their values, and that it's so hard for them to speak their mind without public backlash, why should we even care?

 

[Revoltingest]

While that is technically true, do all such groups deserve any shred of sympathy? If the Klan feels marginalized and like America just doesn't reflect their values, and that it's so hard for them to speak their mind without public backlash, why should we even care?

Not all marginalized minorities are Klansmen.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Not all marginalized minorities are Klansmen.

Yes. Some are flat earthers. Some are reprobates that feel pineapple should go on pizza. I think the point attempting to be made and I'll be making now is that minorities don't automatically deserve to be free from marginlization. Only specific minority groups are allowed the right to be free from it. Things like race, sexual orientation ect are innate qualities define minority roles that are given rights despite being the minority. People living in the midwest shouldn't get artifically inflated votes simply because of their demographic positions.