Electoral college

[LivingAlmostLarge]

We touched on it on another thread, DS I get the tyranny of the majority, but now we're under the regime of the minority. Donald wins the electoral college but loses popular vote. Is it fair? Is that how it should be? That you only have to win certain states to win? That majority of liberal and conservative states aren't even contested because they don't matter?

That the presidency of the US is determined by a small number of people? I mean I didn't see a single ad where I live for politics. But people in swing states are overrun?

BJL is in PA as are you and your votes mattered but mine did not. What would happen if we turned it to a popular vote? I mean vox explained all donald had to do was put together a winning number of states not people to win which happened.

I don't see how this is still fair? DS you posted the numbers of people living in states. Well the electoral college makes a vote in PA worth everything and nothing if you live in CA. So how is that fair? Where is the parity?

[disneysteve]

I agree with you. I wasn't contesting that in the other thread. I was just pointing out why the candidates concentrate their efforts where they get the biggest bang for their buck.

I do have a problem with a system where the outcome is not determined by a majority vote. I always have and have said it many times over the years.

[creditcardfree]

Read this. One of many articles that explain why the populist vote is bad. It also suggest that states can change how they allocate their electoral college votes. Nebraska and Maine currently split theirs while all other states are winner take all. States rights are so important...so if you want to make change start with how your state government works in this regard.

[Eagle]

I'm glad someone is willing to discuss this! Here's some what I consider valid issues I have with the electoral college. From this site and article back in 2012 here's 10 problems with the Electoral College system in the USA: https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-...ollege-problem

Problem No. 1
It creates the possibility for the loser of the popular vote to win the electoral vote. This has happened multiple times throughout USA history. This has happened 5 out of 57 of the last US Presidential elections or 8.8% of the time.



Problem No. 2

It distorts the presidential campaign by incentivizing the parties to write off the more than 40 states {in 2012} (plus the District of Columbia) that they know they either can’t win or can’t lose. Take for example the lack of interest in candidates visiting states or spending advertisement dollars in states like California, Texas and New York. Which among the 3 of them make up more than 25 percent of the U.S. population!



Problem No. 3

The Electoral College system further distorts the presidential campaign by causing the candidates to grant extra weight to the parochial needs of the swing states. See this link: http://www.amny.com/news/elections/s...ion-1.12408775



Here's the {very surprising} results of the 2016 Presidential election so far.
• Arizona (11 electoral votes) ... likely Trump
• Colorado (9 electoral votes) ... Hilary
• Florida (29 electoral votes) ... Trump
• Georgia (16 electoral votes) ... Trump
• Iowa (6 electoral votes) ... Trump
• Michigan (16 electoral votes) ... TBD
• Nevada (6 electoral votes) ... Hilary
• New Hampshire (4 electoral votes) ... TBD
• North Carolina (15 electoral votes) ... Trump
• Ohio (18 electoral votes) ... Trump
• Pennsylvania (20 electoral votes) ... Trump
• Virginia (13 electoral votes) ... Hilary
• Wisconsin (18 electoral votes) ... Trump



Problem No. 4

For the same reason, it distorts governance. A first-term president who expects to have a tough reelection fight (as they all at least expect to) but who wanted to establish diplomatic and trade relations with Cuba (broken in 1960) would have to consider the possibility that such a policy might cost him Florida and therefore a second term. Case in point take December 17, 2014 when President Obama and Raúl Castro announced that the United States and Cuba would restore full diplomatic ties for the first time in more than fifty years.



Problem No. 5

The Electoral College system further distorts the one-person, one-vote principle of democracy because electoral votes are not distributed according to population. Every state gets one electoral vote for each member of its delegation to the House of Representatives (this by itself would be a rough measure of its population) and each state also gets two “bonus” electors representing its two senators. This causes significant overrepresentation of small states in the “College.” In the most extreme case, using 2010 Census figures and the new distribution of House seats based on that census, an individual citizen in Wyoming has more than triple the weight in electoral votes as an individual in California. Yes, you read that right. In fact, it’s closer to quadruple than triple. Can this be a good thing?



Problem No. 6

The Electoral College creates the possibility of a 269-269 tie vote, and in almost every recent election there has been a relatively credible scenario for such an outcome. The rules of the Electoral College system for dealing with a tie are bizarre and scary and create a fairly plausible scenario by which no one would be elected president in time for Inauguration Day. In that 1800 election, Thomas Jefferson tied with his own running mate Aaron Burr. Better not try to cram that whole saga in here right now. It led to the 12th amendment (ratified 1804), which changed the Framers’ original language so that each elector could indicate which candidate they supported for president and which for vice president, thereby eliminating the possibility that any presidential candidate will end up in a tie with his own running mate. But that didn’t solve the serious problems inherent in the tie scenario.



Problem No. 7

Although our system makes it very hard for third parties to win elections and almost impossible for a third party to win the presidency, the Electoral College system makes it quite possible for a small third-party showing in a single state or two to change the outcome of the whole national election. This happened in 2000, when Ralph Nader, running as the Green Party nominee, finished third in the popular vote with just 2.74 percent, and received just 1.6 percent in Florida, but those votes (plus a number of other weird factors about which some people are still arguing) probably shifted the state from Democratic nominee Al Gore to Republican George W. Bush. And, because of winner-take-all, that one state also tipped the outcome of the national election.



Problem No. 8
The Electoral College system prevented Dick Cheney from becoming vice president. Well, no, it actually didn’t, but it would have if we had taken the letter and the intention behind the words in the Constitution seriously. The Constitution says that an elector cannot vote for a presidential and vice presidential candidate both of whom come from the same state as him/herself (the elector, that is). This rule actually made sense when the Framers put it in there but stopped making sense almost immediately. (To explain this, we’ll eventually have to get to the story of how the Framers thought this contraption was going to work.) But it’s still in there. George W. Bush was a Texan. In 2000, when he became Bush’s running mate, Cheney had been living and voting and paying taxes for five years in Texas where he eked out a living as CEO of Halliburton.



Problem No. 9

In case of a tie, or if no candidate receives a majority of all electoral votes cast for president, the choice of president is thrown in the House of Representatives but the election is conducted on a one-state one-vote basis. (Yes, Wyoming – population 563,000 in the 2010 census -- would have equal say in the selection of the president with California – 37 million.) And to win, a candidate must receive the support of an absolute majority of states.



Problem No. 10

And here’s a really crazy part, which sort of underscores the craziness of our practice of abiding by the Framers’ language. When the Framers put that crazy structure, where the presidential election would be thrown from the Electoral College into the House for a one-state one-vote choice of the next president, they believed this would actually happen on a regular basis.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

CCF I read and I can the point how difficult recounts can be. But right now it's very unfair I think the electoral college.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/7/12315574/electoral-college-explained-presidential-elections-2016

When it was started it was the framers keeping power for the elite or electorals.

But now it doesn't appear to make sense. I wonder if you have a point about distributing electoral votes by % won then candidates would be forced to campaign everywhere and try to win votes in every state and be competitive. That would force them to try their hand even in states they wouldn't win to garner some electoral votes. I wouldn't mind trying that. At least people in non-swing states would have a say.

As it stands right now someone in a swing state has 3x the power of someone in a non swing state. How is that fair? Just because it's how it was done by framers doesn't make it right. After all woman can vote now.

[kork13]

I agree, and for as long as I've been voting (admittedly just 12 years), I've not liked the electoral college as it stands. IMO the most practical option would be to keep the college, but have states all do similar to Maine and assign electoral votes in some manner relative to the popular vote within each state.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

I could tolerate that distributing votes based on popular vote. I couldn't stand it in 2000 when Al Gore won the popular vote and lost. I thought it unfair. But nothing happened. At least if we determined the winner by popular vote and equitable distribution of electoral votes I'd be satisfied that everyone would have to be "pandered" too. Not just a couple of states.

[Eagle]

We touched on it on another thread, DS I get the tyranny of the majority, but now we're under the regime of the minority. Donald wins the electoral college but loses popular vote. Is it fair? Is that how it should be? That you only have to win certain states to win? That majority of liberal and conservative states aren't even contested because they don't matter?

That the presidency of the US is determined by a small number of people? I mean I didn't see a single ad where I live for politics. But people in swing states are overrun?

BJL is in PA as are you and your votes mattered but mine did not. What would happen if we turned it to a popular vote? I mean vox explained all donald had to do was put together a winning number of states not people to win which happened.

I don't see how this is still fair? DS you posted the numbers of people living in states. Well the electoral college makes a vote in PA worth everything and nothing if you live in CA. So how is that fair? Where is the parity?

1. What would you change?
2. How would you change it?
3. Would Congress pass such a change?
4. Would a President not veto such a change?

[frugal saver]

I'm in California, one of the most populous states in the country. Rarely does anyone campaign here and our vote doesn't much count during the primary.

In this election, Hillary won 2 major areas--San Francisco and Los Angeles, both long-term Democratic strongholds. Trump won the majority of the rest of the state. But Hillary won the "whole" state because those two huge urban areas determine the politics of the entire state.

I realize that some people think it should be popular vote--but are you understanding that the large cities would therefore control the election and the people who live everywhere else wouldn't even have a vote.

[Outdoorsygal]

It's a sad day when a person gets the most votes, and it doesn't really matter.

[Outdoorsygal]

I'm in California, one of the most populous states in the country. Rarely does anyone campaign here and our vote doesn't much count during the primary.

In this election, Hillary won 2 major areas--San Francisco and Los Angeles, both long-term Democratic strongholds. Trump won the majority of the rest of the state. But Hillary won the "whole" state because those two huge urban areas determine the politics of the entire state.

I realize that some people think it should be popular vote--but are you understanding that the large cities would therefore control the election and the people who live everywhere else wouldn't even have a vote.

With your scenereo, they have an equal vote just like everyone else.... as it should be.
The fact is Hillary won. Just as Al Gore won. We are just to depraved of a country to allow fairness to prevail

.

[creditcardfree]

Since when is life fair?

If you think about it we actually vote for our senators and representatives by popular vote, then they, as part of the electoral college, are given the responsibility to cast the final vote for president. I've already heard of one senator that plans not to vote for Clinton.

The United States is NOT a true democracy. It is a Republic, thus why we have layers of representation. The founders were afraid that a group of people could get a majority and have control that would trample on the rights of citizens.

Why not read up on the history?

[StormRichards]

The fact is Hillary won. Just as Al Gore won. We are just to depraved of a country to allow fairness to prevail

No, they both lost.

To suggest that either of them would have won if it was held by popular vote is presumptuous. There are plenty of people that choose not to vote because of they do not feel their vote counts.

As long as it is done via electoral college, popular vote is meaningless.

[Outdoorsygal]

Since when is life fair?

If you think about it we actually vote for our senators and representatives by popular vote, then they, as part of the electoral college, are given the responsibility to cast the final vote for president. I've already heard of one senator that plans not to vote for Clinton.

The United States is NOT a true democracy. It is a Republic, thus why we have layers of representation. The founders were afraid that a group of people could get a majority and have control that would trample on the rights of citizens.

Why not read up on the history?

You can excuse whatever you want but we are still too depraved a country to allow fairness to prevail.
No one is refusing to "read up" on history, btw

[Outdoorsygal]

No, they both lost.

To suggest that either of them would have won if it was held by popular vote is presumptuous. There are plenty of people that choose not to vote because of they do not feel their vote counts.

As long as it is done via electoral college, popular vote is meaningless.

You are off topic. I never addressed those folks who didn't come out to vote.