Electoral College

[jbrown_9999 1,020]

BTW, BAgate when you say that majority rules, do you realize that Clinton had less than half the votes cast in the 2016 election at 48.2%?

[jbrown_9999 1,020]

One thing to think about regarding the popular vote that was mentioned in the article linked by Kelly Gruene is the fact that the popular vote of an election is impacted by the dynamics of the EC itself.

 

Trump might have lost the popular vote in 2016 but the 2016 popular vote was most likely skewed by the very existence of the Electoral College. Different election rules would have resulted in different behavior by both candidates and voters so one cannot use the 2016 popular vote as an accurate measure of how the election would have looked if the election was based on the popular vote.

 

Since it is winner takes all for all but two states, candidates typically only actively campaign and run ads in battleground states. I saw mention that 2/3 of all presidential campaign spending was in just six states in 2016.

 

Three states conceded to Clinton represented 21% of total US population (California, Illinois, and New York). Along with other safe "blue" states, there was a greater percent of population in democratic leaning states that was not actively campaigned to by either party.

 

In addition, voter turnout in non-battlefield states would likely be different in the case of a popular vote determined election.

 

So while one can make the statement that Clinton had more votes cast for her than Trump, it is disgenius to make an absolute statement that she should be president as a result since no one really knows how the votes would have looked in a true winner takes all popular vote election.

[jbrown_9999 1,020]

I know that I have posted three different posts but each of the three had slightly different points I was hoping to make.

 

My main reason for wanting to retain the Electoral College and also why I like the 60% filibuster threshold and the 2/3 of votes needed for a constitutional amendment is that I think that government works best when it needs to cater to the middle ground.

 

All of these items help to prevent a simple majority from pushing the country to an extreme by helping to ensure that a wider set of viewpoints are considered especially since the two party system seems to here to stay.

 

I also think that it is good for the US to have the parties take turn being in power and having different parties control the White House and Congress is OK.

[Kelly Gruene 26]

I believe all the rhetoric about ditching the electoral college will fade away once the primaries are over. Whoever the democratic candidate ends up being, I don't think the electoral college issue is going to be one that wins any votes from middle-ground voters. It is an issue that stimulates the base up through the primary season and will sound great on a debate stage full of like-minded candidates, but once it's one-on-one with Trump (or whoever the Republican nominee is if/when Trump steps down), I don't think this issue will win over more than a handful of truly independent voters. I don't see it being something the democratic candidate for president talks about much on the campaign trail. When it comes to debating the Republican candidate in front of a TV audience, the democratic candidate will be pretty neutral, saying something like "it's worth looking at...one person one vote..." but won't come out and definitively say "We have to change the electoral college system". (I wish this could be 'bookmarked' to re-visit once the Presidential debates actually begin.)

 

Also, I don't think when it comes down to it that small states will ever want to give up the importance they actually do have in the electoral college system. States that lean democratic now like Vermont and Delaware voted Republican as recently as 1992 (Vermont) and 1988 (Delaware). States with small populations are often taken for granted by the various parties, but times and mindsets and votes do change. If you ask a person from Vermont today if she thinks a person from New York should have more say in who should be president than she does, she would almost certainly say "No". Vermont has 3 electors while New York has 29. Vermont has 625,000 residents while New York has 19,500,000. Vermont has a disproportionately high representation in the electoral college based on population. New Yorkers probably don't like it, but when push comes to shove I don't think Vermonters will yield that power their southern neighbors.

[Jersey Irish 205]

Keep the Electoral College because popular vote is not what is intended by our union. The states were willing to give up some rights to join the U.S., but giving up their proportional say as to who is president of the union is not one of them. The states joined on a limited basis and this is one of those limits. If a state wants to give up wholesale electors, that's fine, but I'll tell you that the conservative states aren't going to do that for a variety of reasons which means, you're just giving conservatives more votes if you're a liberal state.

 

In reality, this entire argument is just sour grapes from people who live in New York and California. They think they get to dictate what the entire country does based on the mobs that overcrowd their cities and have been indoctrinated into their bullsh*t socialist culture.

 

You nailed it, my friend, Agree with you 110%!!

[NDhoosier 1,229]

NDHoosier

3) I think this is where the fundamental disagreement lies. I think of the US as a country with the states being constituent parts, you see the US as being a union made up of the states. I don't know how we bridge this divide.

 

I appreciate the fairly civil discourse overall (at least between you and I). However, I would like to talk about this point you expanded on.

 

The USA has always been a union of various states. Many, myself included, forget that it is even in the name: UNITED STATES of America. The constitution was written with that in mind because they realized that a country will have people influenced differently depending on where they live.

 

People who grow up in Kansas have different values than people who grow up in the big cities. The people in Kansas were promised an equal representation on federal laws that will affect them. The electoral college fulfills that promise to each of the states. There is a process in place for a state to leave the Union.

 

Again, California benefited greatly when it first became a state from the electoral college, now that they are the most populated state, they do not see the need. This is why there are checks and balances so that the majority do not always have the final say.

[dangeruss 6]

Electoral college only gets talked about after the Democrats lose the White House

 

If you eliminate the electoral college, then LA, New York, Miami, and Chicago would determine the representation of the ENTIRE country. It doesn’t even pass the common sense test.

 

But Trump didn’t do anything to collude with Russia so now the demoncrats have to find a new angle

I agree. If you get rid of the electoral college than the entire country will be run like California, Chicago and New York City, just think about what a disaster that would be. you can not let the crazies run the country we need people with common sense.

[BAgate 23]

1) There is a difference in giving each state equal representation in the senate (what they were promised) and giving each state equal representation overall (what they were NOT promised). Even under the EC each state gets different representation.

 

2) I'm of the belief that states matter less now. When I think of myself I think of a US citizen, not a citizen of my state. And there is more movement today (for ex. I currently don't live in the state I was born in). So while each state is different I don't see them as having an identity that needs special protection. Representation in congress, and especially the senate, takes care of protecting state's rights, so I don't see the need to give low population states a leg up when it comes to electing a president who represents the entire country. Its the old saying, before the civil war the United states are, after the civil war the United States is.

 

3) Calling people who live in cities crazy and saying we shouldn't be run like them isn't a strong argument. Currently cities are experiencing far greater economic growth than rural states, they generally are better at guaranteeing equal rights to minorities, and they tend to come up with more novel solutions to problems. You might call that crazy, but others would say the rural states could use a little of that.

[dangeruss 6]

3) Calling people who live in cities crazy and saying we shouldn't be run like them isn't a strong argument. Currently cities are experiencing far greater economic growth than rural states, they generally are better at guaranteeing equal rights to minorities, and they tend to come up with more novel solutions to problems. You might call that crazy, but others would say the rural states could use a little of that.

with all that economic growth in those states im still wonder which state will go broke first, California or Illinois. also the entire west coast has a massive homeless problem and drug problem and then they want to turn around and legalize pot. not sure the answer to a drug problem is legalizing more drugs.

[Kelly Gruene 26]

1) There is a difference in giving each state equal representation in the senate (what they were promised) and giving each state equal representation overall (what they were NOT promised). Even under the EC each state gets different representation.

 

2) I'm of the belief that states matter less now. When I think of myself I think of a US citizen, not a citizen of my state. And there is more movement today (for ex. I currently don't live in the state I was born in). So while each state is different I don't see them as having an identity that needs special protection. Representation in congress, and especially the senate, takes care of protecting state's rights, so I don't see the need to give low population states a leg up when it comes to electing a president who represents the entire country. Its the old saying, before the civil war the United states are, after the civil war the United States is.

 

3) Calling people who live in cities crazy and saying we shouldn't be run like them isn't a strong argument. Currently cities are experiencing far greater economic growth than rural states, they generally are better at guaranteeing equal rights to minorities, and they tend to come up with more novel solutions to problems. You might call that crazy, but others would say the rural states could use a little of that.

 

I still don't believe, if it actually came down to a constitutional convention where all states met and a ratification of a new system had to take place, that the states with small populations would ever agree to give up the otherwise limited powers they have just to appease the states with larger populations. It doesn't matter whether a state's population always votes for a democrat or a republican for president. The citizens of small states believe they do not have much say in matters of national importance, and they are not likely to let states with larger populations dictate to them.

To me it's a matter of states, not a matter of populace. The United States is a union of individual states. Certainly a large percentage of the population of this union agrees with you that states don't matter as much any more. However, since it is a union of individual states, and states will not ever want to give up power that they have, I don't see that a change of the electoral college in the way you want will ever happen. Changes may happen, but I do not believe it will ever become a one person - one vote situation as it relates to electing a President.

[edcubby 2]

This tread is fantastic!

[ckp160 10]

I'm of the opinion that EC should be overhauled. It no longer does what it needs to do.

As an example, take a look at the political map of CA or WA State. It's a couple blue dots surrounded by red. The entire state of Washington deals with whatever laws or politicians Seattle wants voted in. The east side of the state is in open revolt over some of the stuff that's been voted in lately.

A solution might be to break the electoral college down even further. Perhaps an electoral vote awarded by county? There would probably have to be a way to weight large counties vs small counties, but it might encourage more people to vote AND it would force candidates to have to account for less populated areas. Think how you'd feel if you were a Republican in CA or a Democrat in Idaho. It would seem like your vote doesn't count for ****. The country is devolving into a urban vs rural debate in my opinion, and that has to be accounted for somehow.

[jessemoore97 1,279]

I'm of the opinion that EC should be overhauled. It no longer does what it needs to do.

As an example, take a look at the political map of CA or WA State. It's a couple blue dots surrounded by red. The entire state of Washington deals with whatever laws or politicians Seattle wants voted in. The east side of the state is in open revolt over some of the stuff that's been voted in lately.

A solution might be to break the electoral college down even further. Perhaps an electoral vote awarded by county? There would probably have to be a way to weight large counties vs small counties, but it might encourage more people to vote AND it would force candidates to have to account for less populated areas. Think how you'd feel if you were a Republican in CA or a Democrat in Idaho. It would seem like your vote doesn't count for ****. The country is devolving into a urban vs rural debate in my opinion, and that has to be accounted for somehow.

 

Its always been a rural/urban debate. That's why the EC was set up as well as both houses of Congress the way they are.

[ckp160 10]

I should have been more clear. The debate is now that rural people are backwater hicks and urban folks are educated elitists. At least that's what it appears to be to me.

[jessemoore97 1,279]

I should have been more clear. The debate is now that rural people are backwater hicks and urban folks are educated elitists. At least that's what it appears to be to me.

 

Agree. And I suppose that too has been an age old stereotype, at least towards rural people. Bell curve for intelligence appliesto both though.

[NDhoosier 1,229]

I'm of the opinion that EC should be overhauled. It no longer does what it needs to do.

As an example, take a look at the political map of CA or WA State. It's a couple blue dots surrounded by red. The entire state of Washington deals with whatever laws or politicians Seattle wants voted in. The east side of the state is in open revolt over some of the stuff that's been voted in lately.

A solution might be to break the electoral college down even further. Perhaps an electoral vote awarded by county? There would probably have to be a way to weight large counties vs small counties, but it might encourage more people to vote AND it would force candidates to have to account for less populated areas. Think how you'd feel if you were a Republican in CA or a Democrat in Idaho. It would seem like your vote doesn't count for ****. The country is devolving into a urban vs rural debate in my opinion, and that has to be accounted for somehow.

 

I agree with your premise quite a bit actually. Heck, Californians are so fed up with it that they are trying to petition a separate state because the entire state (which is very large) is run by the major cities on the west coast of the state. A republican in California will never have their voice heard.

 

I do think having all EC votes of a particular state go one direction is out-dated. For example, California is probably 90% Democrat, 10% Republican... so maybe their EC votes should reflect that. Obviously, the same is very true for every state, but California is one of the most one-sided states in the country with a MASSIVE population. California is the main reason why the EC still needs to exist... otherwise they would determine everything for the entire country.

[Jim2Dokes 3]

I agree with your premise quite a bit actually. Heck, Californians are so fed up with it that they are trying to petition a separate state because the entire state (which is very large) is run by the major cities on the west coast of the state. A republican in California will never have their voice heard.

 

I do think having all EC votes of a particular state go one direction is out-dated. For example, California is probably 90% Democrat, 10% Republican... so maybe their EC votes should reflect that. Obviously, the same is very true for every state, but California is one of the most one-sided states in the country with a MASSIVE population. California is the main reason why the EC still needs to exist... otherwise they would determine everything for the entire country.

 

 

You do this and you might as well do popular vote. The disparity, as you pointed out is much greater in favor of Dems in these states. Let’s take Texas, give Hilary 43% of those electoral votes and it’s a landslide. It’s all good you right wingers want to keep it now because it benefits you. AZ and TX are turning you could win the whole Midwest sans ill and MN and in ten years it won’t matter. Get ready for blood baths every election in 10 years. TX will turn blue it is only a matter of time. I vote keep it so I can see the right crying about it in 2028. I wouldn’t be surprised if TX almost turns in 2020, the legal immigrants still don’t like seeing their people in cages illegal or not and will come out in force. Beto wins the primary and it is a wrap.

Edited April 20, 2019 by Jim2Dokes

[ckp160 10]

Jim,

We all heard about how Hillary was going to win in a landslide. I sure thought she was because that's what the talking heads were saying. It all depends on who the DNC can put up. A middle of the road Democrat would do better than some of these crackpots that the DNC is trying to foist on the public. Trump has more of a chance in 2020 than he did in 2016. We've seen what he can do with an investigation hanging over his head. Country is doing alright. Of course, that could all change in a heartbeat.... which is what I think the left wants. We're all on this boat together.... might be a good idea to hope the captain keeps her afloat.

[VCDomer 68]

Historically, the point of the electoral college was to allow southern states to gain the representation of 3/5 of their slaves without having to let them vote. So what is the point now?

 

Supporting the electoral college is to say that you don't like democracy. The fact that in 2 of the last 5 elections the person who got the most votes lost is a travesty.

 

It also makes most of the country irrelevant. How much do candidates campaign in Alabama or California? If you don't live in a swing state then you really don't matter to the politicians. Is that a good thing?

 

And this isn't a conservative/liberal thing. Political winds move in cycles, and 50 or so years ago it was the republicans who were getting screwed by the electoral college.

 

As to the big cities controlling everything, if they have the population, shouldn't they? Isn't that sort of how democracy is supposed to work, with majority rules? If you don't like what they choose, make the argument and change their minds, don't hide behind a set of rules that simply diminishes the importance of their vote.

 

One of the most childish and naive arguments for abolishing the EC I have ever read. Kill the Injuns...we should have the land because we are more civilized!

[Jim2Dokes 3]

One of the most childish and naive arguments for abolishing the EC I have ever read. Kill the Injuns...we should have the land because we are more civilized!

 

Huh? This dude laid out facts and you post this? Childish? Your speaking the jibberish language. He laid out actual facts on why the electoral was setup, facts you can’t argue them, because they are facts. Not Fox News, facts.

Edited April 25, 2019 by Jim2Dokes