Electoral college?

[krc]

If you don't like the electoral college then simply change the constitution. There is a process for that and it has been done. If I were a small state, I would not agree (and states need to agree - 3/4 IIRC) since it would limit their influence. I also don't see it as of any benefit as then campaigns would only happen in 2-3 of the largest states, and the national leadership (executive branch) would not pay any attention to the house reps from small states and would only do the political, economic, and social bidding of NY, CA, and possibly TX (as it goes blue). Maybe this would force smaller states to join together and reduce the number of states? Maybe...

As we have seen in the larger states, they eventually evolve into supermajority political powers. California is a permanent super majority government and it is hard to see that ever changing since the power of a super majority lets it set the agenda, rules, etc... And, as states adopt the initiative process, people are less involved in "who" represents them at the state level since they can simply have an "initiative" to fix the problems - that is why the vote on initiatives in those supermajority states often reflect a much different political bent that is not reflected at the ballot box.

States could make a good faith effort to split their electoral votes (and a couple do that already - the state legislature decides election rules for that state). But the larger states won't do that as they prefer the existing method as well as it consolidates power into a single party for the most "influence." Or they do a "we will split our vote if everyone does as well" which we all know goes nowhere. The larger states don't want to lead on this either otherwise they would split their vote as an example to the other states - even if it hurts them in the short term.





K

 

[krc]

Can't see how to delete this post or move it...
Sorry.
K

 

[Foggy]

Here's how I dispatched that post.

I printed 2 copies.
Threw one in the garbage after tearing it up.
Crumpled the other to be used to start my next grill fire.

Now, I'm done with that one.

Aye.

 

[Valkyrie]

I’ve been a member here since 2005 and there have been very few political posts in those fifteen years and they typically were frowned upon. This is a C-Dory owners’ website devoted to our boats and how we use them.

Let’s keep it that way.

Nick
Valkyrie II
C-Dory 25

 

[smckean (Tosca)]

If you don't like the electoral college then simply change the constitution.

The current Electoral College system allows a candidate to win the Presidency while losing the popular vote, an outcome seen as counter to the one person, one vote principle of democracy. This undemocratic result has occurred in 2 of the last 3 non-incumbent Presidential elections (2000, 2008, 2016). Since a Constitutional Amendment is so difficult to accomplish regardless of the issue, an effort is already underway to eliminate the Electoral College system for any practical purpose other than for symbolism.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide is elected president. As of November 2020, it has been adopted by fifteen states and the District of Columbia which represents 196 electoral votes. Proposals are pending in other state legislatures for another 60 electoral votes.

I also don't see it as of any benefit as then campaigns would only happen in 2-3 of the largest states....

That wouldn't be much different than under the Electoral College system since today nearly all campaigns focus on just a handful of "swing states" (a study by FairVote reported that the 2004 candidates devoted three-quarters of their peak season campaign resources to just five states). It could even be viewed as an improvement since at least under the NPVIC system the few states in play would at least contain the most citizens.

 

[dotnmarty]

Quote:
"I also don't see it as of any benefit as then campaigns would only happen in 2-3 of the largest states...."

Land doesn't vote, people do...

https://carto.maps.arcgis.com/apps/weba ... 776250d2c3

 

[Nancy and Bud]

I think he meant the states with the largest population.

 

[smckean (Tosca)]

There's a subtle disadvantage to the Electoral College (EC) that is often not appreciated. Folks say (as has more or less been said here) that if we abandon the EC then then smaller states won't matter. As dotnmarty reminds us, states don't vote, people do. So said properly the small state sentiment really needs to be stated as: the votes of people in the smaller states won't matter. To some extent that sentiment is true, but an even larger number of votes don't matter under the present day EC system. There are far more "meaningless" votes under the EC system than there would be if you abandon the EC system.

Let me give an example, I live in the State of Washington. Washington is a very liberal state (about 60-40). My vote for President in 2020 doesn't matter much because the state is going for Biden regardless of how I vote. Even worse is the vote of a conservative in this state. If I were for Trump (much of eastern Washington), I would feel 100% that my vote was useless since Washington is "in the bag" for Biden. However, if the President were determined solely on the national popular vote, then my Washington State vote for Trump would absolutely count.....indeed, my Washington State vote for Trump would be just as effective in electing him as a vote in Texas, or even in a swing state like Pennsylvania, since every vote in the USA would contribute exactly the same to his re-election regardless of where you live and vote.

 

[BillE]

Legally, it is the states that vote for president, not the people. That is why Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands can't vote, because they are not states. That is the law of the land (the constitution) and can only be legally changed by that same law, which would require the cooperation of the lesser populated states. The term "electoral college" throws people off but the simple way to think of it is that the states do the voting for president and the individuals vote to choose how their state will vote.

Discussing the legal forms of your country does not seem like "politics" to me.

 

[Knipet]

Let me give an example, I live in the State of Washington. Washington is a very liberal state (about 60-40). My vote for President in 2020 doesn't matter much because the state is going for Biden regardless of how I vote. Even worse is the vote of a conservative in this state. If I were for Trump (much of eastern Washington), I would feel 100% that my vote was useless since Washington is "in the bag" for Biden. However, if the President were determined solely on the national popular vote, then my Washington State vote for Trump would absolutely count.....indeed, my Washington State vote for Trump would be just as effective in electing him as a vote in Texas, or even in a swing state like Pennsylvania, since every vote in the USA would contribute exactly the same to his re-election regardless of where you live and vote.

This is exactly the reason my wife and I retained our Arizona residency rather than in Washington where we stay "just over half the year" despite having a State income tax advantage in WA - so that our votes actually counted in AZ. Arizona had been looking a little purple for the last few years and this year we turned it blue. Also, my wife Joanie was very involved in Mark Kelly's senate campaign.

 

[Knipet]

Let me give an example, I live in the State of Washington. Washington is a very liberal state (about 60-40). My vote for President in 2020 doesn't matter much because the state is going for Biden regardless of how I vote. Even worse is the vote of a conservative in this state. If I were for Trump (much of eastern Washington), I would feel 100% that my vote was useless since Washington is "in the bag" for Biden. However, if the President were determined solely on the national popular vote, then my Washington State vote for Trump would absolutely count.....indeed, my Washington State vote for Trump would be just as effective in electing him as a vote in Texas, or even in a swing state like Pennsylvania, since every vote in the USA would contribute exactly the same to his re-election regardless of where you live and vote.

This is exactly the reason my wife and I retained our Arizona residency rather than in Washington where we stay "just over half the year" despite having a State income tax advantage in WA - so that our votes actually count in AZ. Arizona had been looking a little purple for the last few years and this year we helped turned it blue. Also, my wife Joanie was very involved in Mark Kelly's senate campaign.

 

[Gene&Mary]

Democracy- government by the people especially : rule of the majority. b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.

Republic- form of government in which a state is ruled by representatives of the citizen body. ... Because citizens do not govern the state themselves but through representatives, republics may be distinguished from direct democracy, though modern representative democracies are by and large republics.

While often categorized as a democracy, the United States is more accurately defined as a constitutional federal republic.

It is estimated that by 2040, 70% of the voting power in congress will be held by 30% of the population.

What do you call a form of government that is ruled by the minority?

 

[ssobol]

...What do you call a form of government that is ruled by the minority?

Dictatorship and Monarchy come to mind.

 

[BillE]

----"It is estimated that by 2040, 70% of the voting power in congress will be held by 30% of the population.---"

Estimated by who? Source? And just what is "voting power"? What does this actually mean? Percentage of population including minors? Percentage of eligible voters? Percentage of registered voters? Percentage who actually show up and vote? I'm not being argumentative, I'm asking for clarity.

We are a nation of laws and are ruled by the law. Our voting procedures and who is eligible to vote are established by law, and can be changed by legal procedures. That is a long way from a dictatorship or monarchy.

 

[smckean (Tosca)]

This emphasis on states vs people is rather silly in this day and age. When the Constitution was written the big issue was how to unify 13 independent, and totally self governing entities (i.e., the "13 colonies") into a single nation. People then were just citizens of their state, and owed their loyalty to their state. The competition for power was among these 13 entities. Not so today, we all feel we are citizens of the USA.

So the idea that it is the state that counts is an anachronism some 250 years later. The real divide now (beside racial....which is huge) is between rural (tends Republican) vs urban (tends Democrat). So the system designed by the "founding fathers" is today hopelessly mis-designed to provide any form of "all men are created equal" (even that statement is silly on its face since it leaves out women).

So today the "system" is heavily skewed in favor of Republicans. It's not just the Electoral College; it is the House and Senate too. In 2016 (the only numbers I could find), the House had members who were 51% Republican, but only 45% of people had voted to put them there. This is due to gerrymandering, but more fundamentally it is because state legislatures draw the congressional districts, and urban populations are so concentrated. The Senate is of course worse since low population states get 2 Senators just like high population states. For example, a Wyoming voter has about 66 times the influence in the Senate as does a California voter. In rough numbers about 30-40% of the people control about 60-70% of the Senate seats. Since that 30-40% of the people live in rural states, they tend to be Republican.

Bottom line is: the system designed 150 years ago to apportion power among 13 states, does a terrible job today apportioning power among people. This historical situation gives today's Republicans a huge advantage.

 

[ssobol]

... This historical situation gives today's Republicans a huge advantage.

But supposedly as the population diversifies, states become more Democratic. If current trends continue, TX will eventually become a Blue state. After that, it'll be very much harder for a Republican to become President. Perhaps then, the Republicans will rethink the whole EC thing.

 

[garyf]

But supposedly as the population diversifies, states become more Democratic. If current trends continue, TX will eventually become a Blue state. After that, it'll be very much harder for a Republican to become President. Perhaps then, the Republicans will rethink the whole EC thing.

Doubt it, because we're not in the habit of changing the rules to gain an advantage and we understand the point of the EC. States deserve representation in a republic... a union of states.

If no EC, why not just do away with states all together and make the US one huge borderless blob?

Seriously, think about it - if no EC, a call from your state's governor to the president would carry no more weight than a call from you to the president.

Look at the European Union if you want so badly to kill what makes the US the US - do countries in the EU have representation? Yes. Is it a raw "one person, one vote" democracy vote to elect officers at the EU level? No.

 

[krc]

... conversations. Again, there is a way to change the constitution. Hard though. It is not an issue of Republican or Democrat as the tables could turn (California, as an example, used to be a consistent Republican vote back in Reagan era and earlier for two decades). It is simply about figuring out how to make a change and if it actually makes sense. Historically, all the states were scared of Virginia with its much larger population (twice the pop of the next largest colony). There would have been no US without protection of smaller states from a more dominate and economically powerful state. Today, CA would dominate the entire US as on its own it is a top 6 world economy, and large population centers.

Some idealistic states do split their electoral vote even though it reduces their political power (supposedly, depending how you look at it). However, that is the way to go as the state legislatures control the seating of the electors (by existing constitutional power)- and is MUCH easier than a constitutional amendment. That is easily done actually - hence why we already have a couple of states that split their votes. So there is actually an EASY way to make the electoral college be more representative - it just takes courage from states to do it even if it costs something initially. If a state is truly concerned about more closely representing the direct will of its population, that state would make the easy change to split electoral votes. But both parties want to "control" the current system, for much different reasons as previously noted.

As to other comments regarding Senate - yes. Smaller states clearly weld more power disproportionate to their population. (The house, however, is apportioned by census (population). The Federalist papers were all about how to protect the smaller states from being dominated by Virginia - hence the Senate. I disagree that the concerns of the smaller states (of domination by larger states) would be much different today than back 200 years ago.

And so how is it better than today, where if we had a direct vote, candidates would only campaign in three states? That is much less than the number of battle ground states (whatever that means as it now includes GA, AZ, , etc..). At least the way it is set up today, money is obtained from the large population states and sent to advertise and influence folks in the smaller states. Distribution of wealth at its finest.

Fun conversation though.

 

[westward]

Folks of all political allegiances should resist the temptation to alter/remove the brilliant system of checks and balances our founding fathers so wisely built into our constitution and thusly our political system.

Your party of choice might temporarily benefit from the stripping away of these protections, but (as others have pointed out) beware the swing of the pendulum! Checks and balances serve to protect us from ourselves, and to prevent, or at least mitigate fascism and/or mob-ocracy.

Before buying into fanciful theories about how the particulars of the US Constitution "no longer really apply to our current situation", give this one some careful consideration. Look back through history. Particularly if you've become fond of your constitutional rights and protections.

Happy boating!!

 

[smckean (Tosca)]

And so how is it better than today, where if we had a direct vote, candidates would only campaign in three states?

So what would be your response to a conservative voter in my state of Washington? Let's say he/she lives in eastern Washington and their community is 80% conservative, but their vote absolutely counts for nothing under the EC system since this state gives all its electoral votes to the liberal candidate by a 2:1 margin. Without the EC, that person's vote would count as much as my vote, or your vote, or anyone else's vote for that matter.