Electoral college

[Eagle]

Eagle explain why the rural vote should count 3x as much as the urban vote? Why should African Americans still not be 3/5 a person? Why should women be allowed to vote? Does society evolve? Does the needs change of people? http://time.com/4571626/electoral-co...ong-arguments/

I think the electoral college needs to go. I said that since 2000 when Al Gore lost. Too bad the democrats didn't work on it then. The truth is I think CCF brings up a good compromise of delegating votes based on % won in state. It would make everything more competitive.

And right now it's not really rural versus urban? It's swing state versus non-swing state. Everybody deep red or blue has no say in picking a president. And it just seems unfair that living in a place like CA you have absolutely no say. How is that fair?

Explain why the minority gets to be a tyranny? When the founders created it they even said it was to prevent the ignorant common people. Well turns out we still have the elites and everyone else. Except now the elites in both parties are having trouble with all the masses.

@LivingAlmostLarge
All these are interesting question for sure. Here’s a few thoughts:

A. Eagle explain why the rural vote should count 3x as much as the urban vote? Because apparently that’s how the Electoral College is set up in some cases. There’s a minimum cap that each state gets regardless of population. At least that’s how I understand it.

B. Why should African Americans still not be 3/5 a person? Every African-American born here in the U.S.A. or naturalized is considered a citizen of the United States. As such he or she counts as one person and gets one vote come election time. There’s also the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to consider.

C. Why should women be allowed to vote? Every woman born here in the U.S.A. or naturalized is considered a citizen of the United States. As such she counts as one person and gets one vote come election time. There’s also the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to consider.

D. Does society evolve? Yes, I believe so. Take for example the evolution of the voting process in the United States you mentioned in a previous question or two.

E. Do the needs of the people change? Yes, I believe needs change. Take transportation, television, or internet for example. Today, many would consider those needs in America. That said, to do away with the electoral college would drastically change the identity of the United States from a Democratic Republic to a purer Democracy. See previous post in response to Singuy for definitions.

F. Is the current vote between rural vs urban OR swing state versus non-swing state? I think the vote was pretty much rural vs urban. The current system doesn’t really give candidates incentives to visit many of the solid “base” states such as California, New York, or Texas.

G. How is it fair that states like California, New York, and Texas votes don’t count? The VOX.com link you provided showed that Democrats have a solid base primarily in the coastal states gaining 182 electoral votes and that Republicans have a solid base in the central states gaining 170 electoral votes.

H. Explain why the minority gets to be a tyranny? IIt depends on what you mean by "the minority". I don’t know what you mean here. More minorities voted for Hilary than Trump in this past election. Or are you referring to once again Hilary winning the popular vote and losing the Electoral College?

[Eagle]

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?

5. Would the Supreme Court uphold such a drastic change to the constitution in the event of doing away with or changing the electoral college?

@LivingAlmostLarge how about taking a look and considering the questions above. I did ask you first. I’ll add another 5th question I find very intriguing.

1./2. I do find the idea of dividing out electoral votes by % of population vote interesting and even somewhat appealing. It would be problematic though I’d imagine. How would you split the vote? It could be considered an infringement of states’ rights if it were a federal law or mandate.

3. The first option presented… In my mind no way would two thirds of the House and Senate pass a constitutional amendment to do away with the Electoral College. No way 38 states would ratify that change.

The second option of a constitutional convention has never been done. It would have to be called for 34 states. No way that would happen either in my mind.

The third option is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. The states in this agreement say they will pledge their electoral college votes to the winner of the popular vote but only if the states controlling the 270 necessary votes to win the electoral college do the same. I do find it interesting that the big push for this change is coming from states that tend to lean to the left according to the article you linked: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...elections-2016

4. I'd imagine Donald Trump would attempt to block or veto such a change since he was elected under the current system.

5. If taken to the Supreme Court there's not telling what a ruling would be as to the constitutionality of such a change. It would mean interpreting the intent of the founding fathers.

My 2 Cents...

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I read that just 7 states would control the entire US if we went with the popular vote. Basically all the other states would be ignored.

Electoral college is a decent system that balanced population heavy states with low population states. Hillary didn't even win a majority, meaning a majority of people wanted someone other than Hillary. I did hear that her vote totals made it to 49% but that still means 51% of the country wanted someone other than her to be President.

However, I will say that Trump does not have a mandate and it's absurd to claim he has one. He does have the political power now to implement his policies, for better or for worse.

[disneysteve]

51% of the country wanted someone other than her to be President.

Not exactly. Actually 46.9% of voters didn't vote. The election was decided by the 53.1% who did. Of those, about 25.6% votes for Clinton and 25.5% voted for Trump (those numbers are from right after the election. Clinton actually got a little more now that she's ahead by about 2 million votes.)

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Not exactly. Actually 46.9% of voters didn't vote. The election was decided by the 53.1% who did. Of those, about 25.6% votes for Clinton and 25.5% voted for Trump (those numbers are from right after the election. Clinton actually got a little more now that she's ahead by about 2 million votes.)

Ok fair enough. Among people who voted, most people voted for someone other than HRC.

As of now.

[disneysteve]

Ok fair enough. Among people who voted, most people voted for someone other than HRC.

True. Clinton beat Trump by about 1.4% but got 48% of the total.

[StormRichards]

"Trump's win in Michigan gives the Republican 306 electoral votes to Democrat Hillary Clinton's 232."

[LivingAlmostLarge]

Again how is it fair only a couple of states matter but the dark red/blue states have no say? How can it be that only people in swing states get a say? We might as well not bother with voting in states that aren't swing either way.

[Eagle]

Again how is it fair only a couple of states matter but the dark red/blue states have no say? How can it be that only people in swing states get a say? We might as well not bother with voting in states that aren't swing either way.

@LivingAlmostLarge how about we apply that to Congress for a moment?

If we become obsessed with government by popular majority as the only consideration, should we not then abolish/change the Senate which represents States regardless of population?

Should we not correct then too the distortions in the House (caused by districting and by guaranteeing each State at least one Representative) by changing it to a system of proportional representation?

This would accomplish "government by popular majority" and guarantee the representation of minority parties, but it would also demolish our federal system of government. If there are reasons to maintain State representation in the Senate and House as they exist today, then surely these same reasons apply to the choice of office of President.

Why, then, apply a sentimental attachment to popular majorities only to the Electoral College?

[pflyers85]

Again how is it fair only a couple of states matter but the dark red/blue states have no say? How can it be that only people in swing states get a say? We might as well not bother with voting in states that aren't swing either way.

I just see the people complaining about the Electoral College as those who are unsatisfied that their candidate did not win. Do we really think Barbara Boxer (D-CA) would introduce a bill in the Senate if Hillary won the EC but lost the PV? Of course not. Also like I said before in another post if the PV decided the election and it was known prior to the campaign you can't automatically assume Hillary would have won. Both candidates campaigned for the EC because that is what determines the President. The fact that she won the PV is immaterial.

Swing states change a lot faster than heavily populated solidly Blue or Red states. Virginia was once a solid red state that had become a swing state and for the last 3 elections but right now leans pretty blue. Also a swing state indicates a balance and moderation. Having the heavily populated political extremes determining elections probably isn't going to yield the most balanced result for the country. Neither is perfect but I see a lot more flaws with the PV especially when you consider that our country was not designed to be a Democracy but a Republic. Democracies lead to mob rule and the trampling of the rights of the minority. The Founders in their wisdom created a system to guard against that.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Again how is it fair only a couple of states matter but the dark red/blue states have no say? How can it be that only people in swing states get a say? We might as well not bother with voting in states that aren't swing either way.

Red/blue states have no say? Wha'?

You're not a rational arguer.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

Any state heavily skewed either Red or Blue has no say. There is no point in those states even voting. I've never lived where I've seen a political ad because I've never lived in a swing state. I imagine that most states fall in this category, very few states are "swing".

So basically the country gets decided by people living in the 10 or states that matter and only the people there votes count. I can't say I disagree with CCF point and I think her suggestion of proportionate allocation of electoral votes based on popular vote would make sense. It would make every state I think competitive.

It's been proven that living in a swing state makes your vote worth 3x living in a non swing state. So how is that fair? I mean if it was based on popular vote in every state then maybe more people would also turn out to vote because they know every vote in every state COUNTS. Rather than oh i live in CA or TX or OK or CT.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Any state heavily skewed either Red or Blue has no say. There is no point in those states even voting. I've never lived where I've seen a political ad because I've never lived in a swing state. I imagine that most states fall in this category, very few states are "swing".

So basically the country gets decided by people living in the 10 or states that matter and only the people there votes count. I can't say I disagree with CCF point and I think her suggestion of proportionate allocation of electoral votes based on popular vote would make sense. It would make every state I think competitive.

It's been proven that living in a swing state makes your vote worth 3x living in a non swing state. So how is that fair? I mean if it was based on popular vote in every state then maybe more people would also turn out to vote because they know every vote in every state COUNTS. Rather than oh i live in CA or TX or OK or CT.

They do have a say, they have their electoral counts voted.

DUH!

[Eagle]

Any state heavily skewed either Red or Blue has no say. There is no point in those states even voting. I've never lived where I've seen a political ad because I've never lived in a swing state. I imagine that most states fall in this category, very few states are "swing".

So basically the country gets decided by people living in the 10 or states that matter and only the people there votes count. I can't say I disagree with CCF point and I think her suggestion of proportionate allocation of electoral votes based on popular vote would make sense. It would make every state I think competitive.

It's been proven that living in a swing state makes your vote worth 3x living in a non swing state. So how is that fair? I mean if it was based on popular vote in every state then maybe more people would also turn out to vote because they know every vote in every state COUNTS. Rather than oh i live in CA or TX or OK or CT.

Care to address these questions? You asked yours and I answered. You haven't really responded to what I've asked. Just an observation.

@LivingAlmostLarge how about we apply that to Congress for a moment?

If we become obsessed with government by popular majority as the only consideration, should we not then abolish/change the Senate which represents States regardless of population?

Should we not correct then too the distortions in the House (caused by districting and by guaranteeing each State at least one Representative) by changing it to a system of proportional representation?

This would accomplish "government by popular majority" and guarantee the representation of minority parties, but it would also demolish our federal system of government. If there are reasons to maintain State representation in the Senate and House as they exist today, then surely these same reasons apply to the choice of office of President.

Why, then, apply a sentimental attachment to popular majorities only to the Electoral College?

[Eagle]

They do have a say, they have their electoral counts voted.

DUH!

Apparently LivingAlmostLarge wants to complain but isn't really willing to answer questions or truly engage others on this topic. Sounds like a rant or complaining thread instead. Lol