Why The Electoral College Is Fair

[esmith]

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

The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal. No region (South, Northeast, etc.) has enough electoral votes to elect a president

.
Another Source says it this way: and I quote

If the United States does away with the Electoral College, future presidential elections will go to candidates and parties willing to cater to urban voters and skew the nation’s policies toward big-city interests. Small-town issues and rural values will no longer be their concern.
Cities already are the homes of America’s major media, donor, academic and government centers. A simple, direct democracy will centralize all power — government, business, money, media and votes — in urban areas to the detriment of the rest of the nation.

Or picking from another Source

Vermont's population is only 621,000, while California has over 36 million. Mathematically, California is 57 times larger than Vermont. However, it is only 18 times more powerful in the Electoral College. It is designed to make sure that Vermont and all the other smaller states have political influence.
Because of the Electoral College, a presidential candidate must garner a minimum of 270 votes in order to win. It takes a minimum of 11 states to win the White House, thanks to the Electoral College. If it were pure popular vote, the voice of most of the states would not be heard. In fact, without the Electoral College several cities would only have a voice. In 2008, for example, 138 million voted for President. In fact, urban areas would be the only ones that would matter to presidential candidates.

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.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

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

Sorry couldn't resist.

 

[PeteC-UK]

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...

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.

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..

 

[Revoltingest]

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...

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

Edit:
A single party system could also guarantee a majority.
I oppose that too.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

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

Not true. One candidate can gain an actual majority of votes in a three-or-more party election; it's just more difficult.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not true. One candidate can gain an actual majority of votes in a three-or-more party election; it's just more difficult.

It's possible, but as we see, not inevitable.
The post I responded to said a majority is needed.
With 3 or more candidates, that is not ensured.

 

[PeteC-UK]

Hi Folks..

.........and even if there are MORE than two three or even more parties involved - it doesnt really matter - a majority of just a SINGLE vote IS STILL a majority - is it not..??..

The only stipulation I my Self consider fair - is to say something like NO elected person can receive LESS than half the vote.. So if in a first vote NOBODY reaches that threshold - then simply illiminate the LEAST VIABLE candidates with the least number of followers - and have THEIR supporters either choose again a new candidtae in round two - or abstain if they cannot choose another..Thus yes indeed one candidate will attain a legitimate majority and thus be entitled to their elected office..

 

[Revoltingest]

Hi Folks..

.........and even if there are MORE than two three or even more parties involved - it doesnt really matter - a majority of just a SINGLE vote IS STILL a majority - is it not..??..

The only stipulation I my Self consider fair - is to say something like NO elected person can receive LESS than half the vote.. So if in a first vote NOBODY reaches that threshold - then simply illiminate the LEAST VIABLE candidates with the least number of followers - and have THEIR supporters either choose again a new candidtae in round two - or abstain if they cannot choose another..Thus yes indeed one candidate will attain a legitimate majority and thus be entitled to their elected office..

A 2nd election?
Ugh.

 

[Onyx]

Everyone complains about the EC when their party doesn't win.

 

[PeteC-UK]

Hi Folks...

Yer - the lesser of two evils - either we follow democracy to its conclusion - or we end up with some form of "dictatorship" where majority wishes MAY be superceded by those in "authority"...Indeed this seems to be the case here - an electoral college with already established authority MAY supercede the actual WISHES and CHOICE of the majority - and that then WOULD be approaching a dictatorship I think and no longer a democracy at all..

 

[Onyx]

Yer - the lesser of two evils - either we follow democracy to its conclusion - or we end up with some form of "dictatorship" where majority wishes MAY be superceded by those in "authority"...Indeed this seems to be the case here - an electoral college with already established authority MAY supercede the actual WISHES and CHOICE of the majority - and that then WOULD be approaching a dictatorship I think and no longer a democracy at all..

The EC prevents large cities from always controlling the vote, which is exactly what would happen otherwise. Talk about an open door for a dictatorship. We don't have a perfect system, but it has stood the test of time so far. I don't think mucking with it is very wise.

 

[Quetzal]

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.

Sure, but what about a democrat in Texas? A republican in CA? Their votes are 100% meaningless. They might as well stay home. Further, a vote in the midwest counts more per EC vote than in a more populated state. Making some votes count more than others which might not count at all. Finally, the politicians already don't care about rural areas. When was the last time someone actively campaigned in Wyoming? North Dakota? They don't, at least not to the extent they will campaign in PA, FL, OH, etc. So, in effect, most politicians already focus on certain areas for their swing votes and let those other 3-5 EC vote states fall to the wayside. Who can blame them?

The EC prevents large cities from always controlling the vote

This is a common criticism. But it is also worth pointing out that not all large cities are dedicated to a political party. Naysayers love to believe that a city is 100% dedicated to a candidate, I simply do not think that is the truth. Sure, a democrat sweeping Dallas would be just as difficult as a republican exchanging blows in San Diego, but that is apparent already.

What I have noticed is that many Republicans are in blind support of the EC, as they should be! In our current party system the Republicans have had a clean sweep when it comes to the EC/popular vote unbalancing act. That is, whenever the popular vote swings the opposite direction of the EC, Republicans have won. Of course they want it to stick around! If we were using a popular vote system, the democrats would have won four of the last five elections. Instead, with popular vote being all but worthless, Republicans won three out of five. What a huge difference it would have made. I can see why repubbies are scared of a genuine popular vote. They would have a much harder time winning.

 

[Iti oj]

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.

The problem with that is Cali doesn't all vote the same. here in Oregon most counties are red. the ec let's the blue cities squash those counties .

So in stead of havi g California as important we have Ohio and Florida . still not fair.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Not true. One candidate can gain an actual majority of votes in a three-or-more party election; it's just more difficult.

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

 

[Quetzal]

The problem with that is Cali doesn't all vote the same. here in Oregon most counties are red. the ec let's the blue cities squash those counties .

So in stead of havi g California as important we have Ohio and Florida . still not fair.

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.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

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.

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.

 

[Quetzal]

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.

Yeah, but a tiger can wish.

 

[habiru]

Well, people only complains when it doesn't work in their favor. For years the losers always has been complaining when they has lost.

 

[BSM1]

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

Sorry couldn't resist.

So now you want to believe him?

 

[Quetzal]

So now you want to believe him?

Well, no. But it is fair to point out the hypocrisy and absurdity that Trump and some of his supporters demonstrated. From their perspective, the system was only fair if they won.