I'm coming around to strongly supporting the Electoral Collegelec

[tantric superman 4668]

1)Part of the smaller states' willingness to be in the union was based on the fact that their concerns wouldn't be swallowed up by the larger population sites.  Doing away with the EC exacerbates the rural/city divide (which will become less of a cultural divide as technology and demographic changes in and of themselves lessen the cultural divide.)

2)Plans like the Nebraska and Maine plans lessen the winner take all approach of most of the other states without changing the general overlay of the electoral college.  That would be a decent compromise between those who favor a purely democratic approach and those who think the EC fits in better with the state/federal relationship.

3)It won't happen.

4)Both parties are in a far better place actually trying to understand and convince middle america of the wisdom of their policies than focus on issues like this and court modifications which tinker with the balance between the three branches.

Interesting issue.  In the short term, making it an issue in this election hurts the Dems.

Has anyone done the research to be able to list the Dem candidates who are pushing this issue down into the lower priority sections of their platforms?

[tantric superman 4668]

(Sorry about the title fuckup.)

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

We should just have every acre vote instead of people.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11856]

I don’t mind keeping it but the “winner take all” aspect needs to be done away with.  

[Nice Guy Eddie 13710]

It’s BS that wyomans (or whatever they’re called) get more power with their votes than Texans or Californians.  But changing it would basically require getting people to agree to give up power.  That ain’t happening.

[Royalfan5 2384]

The smaller states already get disproportionate representation in that senate, how much more to they need to be coddled?

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13619]

Let's pander to Kansas, learn from their wisdom, and strive to be like Kansas.

[tantric superman 4668]

12 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

It’s BS that wyomans (or whatever they’re called) get more power with their votes than Texans or Californians.  But changing it would basically require getting people to agree to give up power.  That ain’t happening.

This is kind of it in a nutshell, but again, to me it would be like a neighborhood association asking me to join, but then telling me that my voting power would be based on the number of people in my household, and I realize that my and my wife are the only childless couples in a neighborhood of mormons and catholics.  You want me to join?  Then one house, one vote. 

Given that federal power has increased throughout the years, to me the argument that small states have that they are in fact giving up power to the feds and need something in return is more powerful now than when the union was first formed. 

Again, and most importantly, the setup to me encourages compromise between the values of rural and urban.  That's not much to ask of a President.

To me I see a bit of a disconnect between Beto going to every county and saying he wants to here what rural folks have to say, and then the idea that we will go to a purely  popular vote which would not only make it pointless to spend time in rural areas, it would affirmatively piss off urban dwellers who don't give a shit what the rubes say.

[Horn Dog 10156]

Rural, sparsely populated regions have disproportionate representation in the senate, House (via gerrymandering), Presidency (via EC)and Supreme Court (via Senate and Presidency).  Exactly how much “non-suppression” do rural voters need to not get upset about being in the union?

Edited March 24, 2019 by Horn Dog

[Incredulity 11861]

How is gerrymandering a rural vs urban issue?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

The EC wouldn’t be a big deal if the loser in elections didn’t keep becoming president and proving to be awful presidents. 

At some point we should probably ask why we keep kicking ourselves in the dick. 

[Hank Kingsley 21601]

It's no wonder that the GOP morphed into the super religious, nationalist, anti-immigrant party. Thank the electoral college. 

 

[Hank Kingsley 21601]

2 hours ago, tantric superman said:

4)Both parties are in a far better place actually trying to understand and convince middle america of the wisdom of their policies than focus on issues like this and court modifications which tinker with the balance between the three branches.

This is absolutely ridiculous. 

[Chrispy 132]

This reminds me of playing board games with my young children. As soon as they realize one of their siblings will win the game, why it’s simply the rules’ fault. This silly idea of abolishing the Electoral College reeks of sore loser. 

[David Dennison 19441]

The right is going to hate the electoral college when Texas turns blue. 

[David Dennison 19441]

3 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

This reminds me of playing board games with my young children. As soon as they realize one of their siblings will win the game, why it’s simply the rules’ fault. This silly idea of abolishing the Electoral College reeks of sore loser. 

So you're down with states awarding electoral votes in any way they see fit, yes?

Edited March 24, 2019 by David Dennison

[jimmyjazz 46985]

There is a difference between the need for small states to have an equal voice in the Senate and the need for individuals in small states to have a greater say in national elections than individuals in larger states.  The Electoral College is not Congress -- the functions of the two entities are different.

I am in favor of maintaining 2 senators per state, but renumbering the House of Representatives every 10 years to reflect the latest census.  (Perhaps we would just have to repaint the bleacher stripes like A&M.)  In this way, Congress as a whole maintains a reasonable balance.  

The EC just needs to go.  Abolishing "winner take all" along with changes in the size and distribution of the House would mostly do the same thing.  I fear gerrymandering is here, permanently, but it is of course absolutely anti-American.  C'est la vie.

[TwiceHorn 31994]

9 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

This is absolutely ridiculous. 

No, it's actually the essence of democracy rather than mobocracy.

The balance of federal vs. state power has tilted away from what the founders had in mind, and some of that is necessary given the complexity of modern life.  In other respects, it is a raw accretion of power that is very much anti-democratic and what the founders hoped to avoid.

The electoral college is a small bulwark tending to tilt the power balance in favor of the states.  Eliminating it altogether would be unwise, in my opinion.

People who want to eliminate it want to affect a single federal election, where it applies, and thereby give that office too much importance.

It's the state winner-takes-all electoral votes that really distort things.  Go lobby those states to change those laws.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13619]

15 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

This reminds me of playing board games with my young children. As soon as they realize one of their siblings will win the game, why it’s simply the rules’ fault. This silly idea of abolishing the Electoral College reeks of sore loser. 

Funny. Reminds me of the now head the Free World explicitly proclaiming that if he lost the election, then it was rigged, apparently borrowing Obama's Magic Time Machine employed to insert newspaper birth announcements from the past (as if that mattered), jamming that thing into Future Drive, ascertaining future facts and delivering the news to We're All Adults World.

[hpslugga 4096]

The very concept of the EC is extremely alone in its stupidity. 

9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

In other respects, it is a raw accretion of power that is very much anti-democratic and what the founders hoped to avoid.

The founders were against democracy in general. James Madison in particular had utter contempt for it and said as much even in the debates of the Constitutional Convention.

Edited March 24, 2019 by hpslugga

[Chuckie Finster 22978]

It wouldn’t shock me to see some Democrat inspired “Move to Texas” campaign in the next decade, to help push our state to the blue side.

And it’s fucking stupid that something like that could matter when electing the leader of our country.

[TwiceHorn 31994]

6 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

The very concept of the EC is extremely alone in its stupidity. 

The founders were against democracy in general.

They rightly had a suspicion of unbridled democracy,.  see, e.g. Brexit, and California's "direct legislation" history.  A federal government is inherently less democratic than a state or local government, and the founders favored the latter.

Edited March 24, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[hpslugga 4096]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

They rightly had a suspicion of unbridled democracy. 

They wanted a society in which, as John Jay put it, "those who own the country ought to govern it." Madison's formulation of this was:

"our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority."

When you couple that with the fact that only white, property-owning males could vote at the timing of the foundation of the republic, it's profusely false to in any way equate that with "democracy."

 

Edited March 24, 2019 by hpslugga

[Hank Kingsley 21601]

The current iteration of the GOP (evangelical, nationalist/anti-immigrant, complete disingenuousness) is the result of win at all costs strategy in the electoral college. 

It's done more harm than good in the modern era. Voter turnout is low. Voter suppression is all over the place. The EC has split the country further apart. It needs to go. 

 

Edited March 24, 2019 by Hank Kingsley

[FondrenRoad 4378]

26 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The right is going to hate the electoral college when Texas turns blue. 

They will still hate the popular vote more. 

They are working on the problem though. Expect them to try to massively undercount CA, NY, and TX in the 2020 census. The attempt to add a citizenship question to the form is their first step. As 2020 nears, expect veiled threats from the admin to illegally use census data against people, and expect the Russian troll farm to push that message as well. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

The EC also kinda safeguards against ballot stuffing.  Say you had some corrupt motherfuckers in Georgia running up the scoreboard with thousands of fake ballots. The effect of that manipulation wouldn’t go past influencing the outcome of that state because of the EC. 

Point is, getting rid of the EC does have a trade off but over my lifetime it’s proven to be an instrument that suppressed the will of the people and devalues my vote.  

[elfenix 34661]

the concern for the electoral college was that virginians would all vote for the virginian on the ticket and no one from rhode island could get elected president.  that, of course, never happened. political parties formed almost immediately and completely overrode that concern.  (the winner take all electoral college systems of most states actually exacerbates this - see walter mondale).  it was also supposed to prevent demagogues from being elected but, since the constitution doesn't specify that, rather voting for a presidential ticket, you're voting for an expert panel to pick the president, it's never really worked that way and doesn't do anything to prevent a demagogue from being elected. 

so, the two concerns it was built to address either 1) don't exist and 2) don't get fixed by it. 

then there's the whole problem of the whole thing being tainted with racism.  first, that states got additional representation in it for populations denied the franchise (and let's not forget that those populations are to this day having to fight for the franchise).  second, that the boundaries and admission of states prior to 1865 was consciously done with the goal of protecting slavery in the senate, so the states themselves (and those 2 electoral votes they get based on senate representation) are permanently and intrinsically tainted with racist slavery. 

Edited March 24, 2019 by elfenix

[Hank Kingsley 21601]

Middle America is afraid of being left behind. Trump tapped into those fears by promising greatness that reminds them of the past. Popular vote will put the focus on all Americans, not 4 states in the Midwest that flip a presidency. 

If we're all in this together, then one person/one vote is the best option. 

 

 

[SimonBolivar 11039]

I'd just like to point out that the divide isn't so much rural vs urban anymore as only 14% of the population lives in rural areas and large states like NY, CA, and TX have huge rural populations.

[Hank Kingsley 21601]

2 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

I'd just like to point out that the divide isn't so much rural vs urban anymore as only 14% of the population lives in rural areas and large states like NY, CA, and TX have huge rural populations.

And there are a lot of disenfranchised Republican voters in NY and CA what would finally have a voice in a Presidential election. And Democrats in Texas. 

Abolishing the electoral college isn't about getting a D in the White House. With a much higher voter turnout and a simple and fair path to victory, it will be easier to unify Americans.  And both parties will have to adjust their ideas/policies to benefit all of us. 

 

 

[SimonBolivar 11039]

1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

 

Abolishing the electoral college isn't about getting a D in the White House. 

 

 

Your points are correct but there's a reason Dems suddenly love the idea.

[Hank Kingsley 21601]

When a Republican POTUS candidate wins the popular vote once in the last 30 years and we're stuck in the mess, yeah. Something needs to be done. 

The electoral college made sense at one point. But Republican politicians have learned to game the system and destroyed its value. We have to adapt. 

 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

11 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

I'd just like to point out that the divide isn't so much rural vs urban anymore as only 14% of the population lives in rural areas and large states like NY, CA, and TX have huge rural populations.

It is rural versus urban in most states. Upstate NY is practically Bama when it comes to Trump support. Rural CA is the same. In TX it is different though since suburban voters lean right and allow the GOP to carry what is already an urban state. 

[Horn Dog 10156]

59 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

This reminds me of playing board games with my young children. As soon as they realize one of their siblings will win the game, why it’s simply the rules’ fault. This silly idea of abolishing the Electoral College reeks of sore loser. 

Pretty sure the “rules” state that if a clause in the Constitution is deemed to by outdated, that there is a mechanism for abolishing that clause.  That is what is being discussed.

[CooterBrown 18273]

Fuck the small states and fuck the rural people. You don’t fucking matter at all. Actually, let’s only let the 20 largest states vote and only those citizens in counties with a population above 250K.

[David Dennison 19441]

17 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

And there are a lot of disenfranchised Republican voters in NY and CA what would finally have a voice in a Presidential election. And Democrats in Texas. 

Abolishing the electoral college isn't about getting a D in the White House. With a much higher voter turnout and a simple and fair path to victory, it will be easier to unify Americans.  And both parties will have to adjust their ideas/policies to benefit all of us. 

This. My presidential vote hasn't counted since 2000. I'd like for my vote to count.

[horn4life 3830]

Without the Electoral college we are short two of the last Republican Presidents, and have probably $10 trillion less in debt. I know sounds like a huge number.  But if you simply assume that President Gore would pay attention to his daily Presidential Briefings 9/11 might simply been an incredibly simplistic plot that was thwarted.  Then you don't have either the Afgan nor Iraq wars.  Or you can argue that on Gore's watch, 9/11 still does happen.  But instead of attacking a country not invovled Gore pushes the country to become complete energy independent from the Middle East.  Huge investment in infrastructure in the US, and quick energy independence of the US results in US becoming the international leader in energy independence technologies.  Instead of trillions pissed away in endless wars and the resulting care needed by surviving soldiers.

Then you can look at Donald Trump's minority vote election.  Look at the devestation in a time of plenty to reasonable budgeting and the explosion of the national debt on the GOP's watch while in complete control of all three branches of congress.  Heck tarrifs are slowing the economic growth and devestating farmers in the midwest with small farm foreclosures skyrocketing and taxpayer bailouts a seasonal new expense for farmers screwed by the tariffs.

One could reasonably argue that the Electoral College is the most expensive  way to empower a minority of the population.  Because majority representation would have saved us a SHIT TON OF MONEY!!!!

 

[Horn Dog 10156]

1 hour ago, Incredulity said:

How is gerrymandering a rural vs urban issue?

Gerrymandering is certainly about the minority political philosophy obtaining and maintaining a disproportionate political voice.  In our time that  correlates closely with rural voters maintaining a disproportionate representation over urban voters.  The point is that in an effort to make sure rural voters are not run over by urban voters, our system gives rural voters disproportionate representation in ALL 3 branches of government.  Getting rid of the EC would give urban voters ONE branch of government with PROPORTIONAL representation while maintaining rural DISPROPORTIONATE representation in the House and Senate.  The Supreme Court would then have equal influence by both rural and urban voters:

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

24 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

When a Republican POTUS candidate wins the popular vote once in the last 30 years and we're stuck in the mess, yeah. Something needs to be done. 

The electoral college made sense at one point. But Republican politicians have learned to game the system and destroyed its value. We have to adapt. 

 

Oh, only the republicans have figured out how to game the system ?  So the democrats weren't smart enough ?  This is your premise ?

[hpslugga 4096]

15 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

And there are a lot of disenfranchised Republican voters in NY and CA what would finally have a voice in a Presidential election. And Democrats in Texas. 

Abolishing the electoral college isn't about getting a D in the White House. With a much higher voter turnout and a simple and fair path to victory, it will be easier to unify Americans.  And both parties will have to adjust their ideas/policies to benefit all of us. 

To me, one of the single largest negative consequences of the EC is the whole entire concept of swing states and safe states.

So say you live in a safe state and you tend to side with the minority party: you tend to feel like your vote doesn't count. Whatever the EC fanboys want to say about it, there's no question that this is a disincentive to vote. If you're a Republican in California or a Democrat in Texas, your vote plainly counts for jack shit under the WTA EC system.

Conversely, say you live in a swing state: you've got much more of an incentive to vote. But what that does to the nation is it forces any and all prospective candidates to focus an inordinate amount of attention on those 12 swing states while it's just taken for granted that 38 states plus DC are going to go in a pre-determined path. Trump never feared, for example, losing Texas or Oklahoma. That just wasn't in the cards. Conversely, Hillary had next to zero concerns over the West Coast states or Hawaii. These races typically come down to about 12 states, and with the low turnout across the board (because the parties are so close together that it's profusely stupid to speak of themas ideologically opposed entities), here's what you've got for 2016:

You go with a popular vote and Hillary wins by 3 million votes
You go with an EC system and Trump wins by a combined total of something like 78,000 votes in the swing states he had to carry in order to win.  

Yes, THAT makes sense. An election for the executive branch at the federal level is decided by less than 80,000 people in 3 states, subverting the will of 3 million Americans who lived in other states. It's no wonder that only the Holy See uses this falderal and that every other civilized country in the world sees this for what it is.

 

[Hank Kingsley 21601]

GOP is far more ruthless. The proof sits in the Oval Office. 

[TwiceHorn 31994]

14 minutes ago, horn4life said:

Without the Electoral college we are short two of the last Republican Presidents, and have probably $10 trillion less in debt. I know sounds like a huge number.  But if you simply assume that President Gore would pay attention to his daily Presidential Briefings 9/11 might simply been an incredibly simplistic plot that was thwarted.  Then you don't have either the Afgan nor Iraq wars.  Or you can argue that on Gore's watch, 9/11 still does happen.  But instead of attacking a country not invovled Gore pushes the country to become complete energy independent from the Middle East.  Huge investment in infrastructure in the US, and quick energy independence of the US results in US becoming the international leader in energy independence technologies.  Instead of trillions pissed away in endless wars and the resulting care needed by surviving soldiers.

Then you can look at Donald Trump's minority vote election.  Look at the devestation in a time of plenty to reasonable budgeting and the explosion of the national debt on the GOP's watch while in complete control of all three branches of congress.  Heck tarrifs are slowing the economic growth and devestating farmers in the midwest with small farm foreclosures skyrocketing and taxpayer bailouts a seasonal new expense for farmers screwed by the tariffs.

One could reasonably argue that the Electoral College is the most expensive  way to empower a minority of the population.  Because majority representation would have saved us a SHIT TON OF MONEY!!!!

 

Again placing too much importance on the presidency.

Also "devastat*" and tariff

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

7 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

8 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

GOP is far more ruthless. The proof sits in the Oval Office. 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... Wait you were serious about that ?  

[wildcat09 29561]

9 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

To me, one of the single largest negative consequences of the EC is the whole entire concept of swing states and safe states.

So say you live in a safe state and you tend to side with the minority party: you tend to feel like your vote doesn't count. Whatever the EC fanboys want to say about it, there's no question that this is a disincentive to vote. If you're a Republican in California or a Democrat in Texas, your vote plainly counts for jack shit under the WTA EC system.

Conversely, say you live in a swing state: you've got much more of an incentive to vote. But what that does to the nation is it forces any and all prospective candidates to focus an inordinate amount of attention on those 12 swing states while it's just taken for granted that 38 states plus DC are going to go in a pre-determined path. Trump never feared, for example, losing Texas or Oklahoma. That just wasn't in the cards. Conversely, Hillary had next to zero concerns over the West Coast states or Hawaii. These races typically come down to about 12 states, and with the low turnout across the board (because the parties are so close together that it's profusely stupid to speak of themas ideologically opposed entities), here's what you've got for 2016:

You go with a popular vote and Hillary wins by 3 million votes
You go with an EC system and Trump wins by a combined total of something like 78,000 votes in the swing states he had to carry in order to win.  

Yes, THAT makes sense. An election for the executive branch at the federal level is decided by less than 80,000 people in 3 states, subverting the will of 3 million Americans who lived in other states. It's no wonder that only the Holy See uses this falderal and that every other civilized country in the world sees this for what it is.

 

This is at least part of the reason our voter turnout is so shitty. We actively discourage participation in our democracy then wonder why so many people don't vote or even have a rudimentary understanding of civics. It's stupid and harmful to the health of our democracy.

[Pato del Muerto 53343]

2 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

It’s BS that wyomans (or whatever they’re called) get more power with their votes than Texans or Californians.  But changing it would basically require getting people to agree to give up power.  That ain’t happening.

Wyoming has one representative in US Congress. That’s the section of the federal government that represents the people.  Wyoming effectively has no voice in the House.

People need to remember that the US is a union of states, and it’s the states that elect the president, not the people. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 minute ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Wyoming has one representative in US Congress. That’s the section of the federal government that represents the people.  Wyoming effectively has no voice in the House.

People need to remember that the US is a union of states, and it’s the states that elect the president, not the people. 

Not really. If it was a union of otherwise independent states, there would have been no civil war. And states could apply much more strict residency requirements for benefits. Instead, people continue to flee rural states and put excess strain on state systems in urban states. Why should wealthier states have to deal with refugees from poor states while also having their hands tied by poor state federal governance?  If Wyoming and Alabama wants to do their own thing, they need to keep their residents in their own borders. 

And the House has little to no power. If it were the more powerful branch of Congress, there would be a more equitable split. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

12 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

This is at least part of the reason our voter turnout is so shitty. We actively discourage participation in our democracy then wonder why so many people don't vote or even have a rudimentary understanding of civics. It's stupid and harmful to the health of our democracy.

How many schools have civics as part of their curriculum any more ?  The SAT people have identified this, and are working to make SAT's civics friendly meaning you need to have a good civics background to get a higher score.  Listened to something about this in an NPR piece recently.

[bad_teammate 13481]

Me, a conservative: "Hmm, actually, upon reflection, I like the systems that disproportionately benefit my worldview. Weird!"

[Guest Lobo]

25 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Wyoming has one representative in US Congress. That’s the section of the federal government that represents the people.  Wyoming effectively has no voice in the House.

People need to remember that the US is a union of states, and it’s the states that elect the president, not the people. 

It's almost as if the framers left behind clues as to their intent re: states' power.  Perhaps we could Nick Cage to solve the mystery of why these States, these American States, States of America---if you will.  Are somehow bound together, that we are a collection of these States of America.  Perhaps even United, somehow.  

We don't call them the Federated States of America.  Oh shit, do we?  

[elfenix 34661]

That's right, "States" are an Other with their own political will separate from the people living in them. The great enlightenment thinkers certainly thought so.