I'm coming around to strongly supporting the Electoral Collegelec

[FondrenRoad 4378]

13 minutes ago, Murfdogg21 said:

People having a academic or philosophical debate over this in a vacuum is funny, when nobody is acknowledging the underlying changes coming within a generation: millions of millennials with worthless degrees, mountains of debt, not great jobs, and raised on cell phones, Snapchat/Facebook, and the Kardashians as well as another generation of Hispanics (from legal and illegal parents) will all be voting solid Democrat and if there are no changes in the GOP platform, they would never win another national popular election. 

In its 228 year history, it has delivered the popular winner with the exceptions of 1876 (bizarre post-reconstruction election), 1888, 2000 and 2016. These later two show the evolution of the nation into dense population centers that typically vote supermajority democratic while all the other areas vote republican by a lesser average margin. 

It is strange that the argument to end the EC is based on protecting the “individual” within the national majority, and the argument against the EC is it protects “small states.” Are small states not composed of individuals? Was the nation not a union of states and not a union of 300 million federal citizens? Hypocrites cannot look in the mirror and say the majority of their angst is because their preferred candidate didn’t win, twice in a 16 year period, and based on national demographic changes a national popular election would substantially benefit their preferred political party more often than not. 

You are an American citizen which means you are, in fact, a federal citizen. You are not a citizen of your state.  You are simply a resident in it, and you are free to become a resident of any of the other states if you choose.

So in spite of the rhetoric about states being in control of our individual identity, we are actually each our own person and we are all Americans, not Texans or Californians or whatever. 

[elfenix 34661]

You are an American citizen which means you are, in fact, a federal citizen. You are not a citizen of your state.  You are simply a resident in it, and you are free to become a resident of any of the other states if you choose.
So in spite of the rhetoric about states being in control of our individual identity, we are actually each our own person and we are all Americans, not Texans or Californians or whatever. 

*except oklahomans. they can get fucked.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

Just now, elfenix said:

7 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

You are an American citizen which means you are, in fact, a federal citizen. You are not a citizen of your state.  You are simply a resident in it, and you are free to become a resident of any of the other states if you choose.
So in spite of the rhetoric about states being in control of our individual identity, we are actually each our own person and we are all Americans, not Texans or Californians or whatever. 

*except oklahomans. they can get fucked.

Well yeah. Thought that was implied. 

[Pato del Muerto 53344]

On 3/24/2019 at 4:46 PM, TwiceHorn said:

Overhauling primaries does not require amending the Constitution.

We don’t amend the constitution anymore. We used to do so every now and again...but politicians decided they didn’t trust the people in a national popular vote to make the right choice. Hmmm. 

[lemonlime 5503]

1 minute ago, Pato del Muerto said:

We don’t amend the constitution anymore. We used to do so every now and again...but politicians decided they didn’t trust the people in a national popular vote to make the right choice. Hmmm. 

They also thought slaves were 3/5 of a person and Senators should be appointed by the state legislatures.

[Pato del Muerto 53344]

Have there been any studies done using past records to see if any elections would have changed had the process been 1 EV per district?

with the caveat that voting patterns could have been significantly influenced by the knowledge of the changed mechanism?

[ulukinatme 1768]

On 3/24/2019 at 11:21 AM, 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. 

 

In the last 30+ years it's been fairly balanced from a Presidential standpoint though.  Other than George Bush Senior's first and only term up against Raegen's, it's been 2 terms for one party, then 2 terms for the other party, and so on.  If anything, we're more balanced as a society with the way the elections have gone under the electoral college.  Can you imagine 30 years of strictly Democrat Presidents?  It might be your dream scenario, but that's not good for the country.  

[Hank Kingsley 21602]

4 minutes ago, ulukinatme said:

In the last 30+ years it's been fairly balanced from a Presidential standpoint though.  Other than George Bush Senior's first and only term up against Raegen's, it's been 2 terms for one party, then 2 terms for the other party, and so on.  If anything, we're more balanced as a society with the way the elections have gone under the electoral college.  Can you imagine 30 years of strictly Democrat Presidents?  It might be your dream scenario, but that's not good for the country.  

30 years of a GOP-free presidency in the future is the ideal scenario. 

And if you think our society is "balanced" in any way right now, oof. 

 

[lemonlime 5503]

11 minutes ago, ulukinatme said:

In the last 30+ years it's been fairly balanced from a Presidential standpoint though.  Other than George Bush Senior's first and only term up against Raegen's, it's been 2 terms for one party, then 2 terms for the other party, and so on.  If anything, we're more balanced as a society with the way the elections have gone under the electoral college.  Can you imagine 30 years of strictly Democrat Presidents?  It might be your dream scenario, but that's not good for the country.  

We need the party controlling the federal government to do so by winning over voters, not by suppressing the majority of the vote.  Maybe if it wasn't so "equal" over the last 30 years, the GOP would present actual conservative ideas, and actually act to reduce the deficit when in power, instead of coming to power by demagoguery to white men and voter suppression. 

[Mdhorn 6153]

1 hour ago, lemonlime said:

They also thought slaves were 3/5 of a person and Senators should be appointed by the state legislatures.

Only during tax time.  They wanted their vote to fully count though. 

[ulukinatme 1768]

1 hour ago, Hank Kingsley said:

30 years of a GOP-free presidency in the future is the ideal scenario. 

And if you think our society is "balanced" in any way right now, oof. 

 

Sure, forget half the country for 30 years, I'm sure that'll be balanced and work out great for long term posterity.  

56 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

We need the party controlling the federal government to do so by winning over voters, not by suppressing the majority of the vote.  Maybe if it wasn't so "equal" over the last 30 years, the GOP would present actual conservative ideas, and actually act to reduce the deficit when in power, instead of coming to power by demagoguery to white men and voter suppression. 

There may not always be a deficit, but we're always going to be in debt.  You can fight it with reduced spending and increased taxes, but eventually you need some tax breaks to even out the system and help provide some economic stimulus.  I'll admit that it's been rather out of control over the last 10-15 years, but we've seen a number of extenuating circumstances that led to the current situation.  

As far as advocating for less balance between the parties in Presidential elections, I'm not sure it would go as you think it would.  Consider the most recent election.  Much of middle America felt left behind by the current establishment and decided to blow up the system with a vote for Trump.  Votes for Trump were a cry from the forgotten man.  Oddly enough, Michael Moore described it best:  

Quote

It’s why every beaten-down, nameless, forgotten working stiff who used to be part of what was called the middle class loves Trump. He was the Molotov cocktail that they have been waiting for. The human hand grenade that they can legally throw into the system that stole their lives from them.

If we had a number of consecutive terms with one party in control of the White House, you would certainly find one side or group feeling forgotten.  You can't please all the people all the time.  It would lead to disenfranchised voters that would eventually rise up to bring balance to the system.  That's one of the very reasons why the elections have been so balanced for the last 30+ years.  The Electoral College is there to help keep a balance.  Does anyone really think that California, or Texas, or New York need more power in Presidential elections?  You can't allow a few states to monopolize the election. 

What this all boils down to is the last election and Hillary overlooking the Midwest swing states.  She thought places like Michigan and Wisconsin that voted with Obama in 2012 would stay with her, so she didn't spend enough time there.  She garnered 900,000 more votes in California than Obama, but any time or resources spent there were essentially wasted.  If she understood how the Electoral College worked we wouldn't be having this discussion.  Likewise, if the popular vote was the deciding factor, you would have seen Trump campaigning more in California and New York and he might have had more votes as a result.

Edited March 26, 2019 by ulukinatme

[elfenix 34661]

20 minutes ago, ulukinatme said:

You can't allow a few states to monopolize the election.  

a) we already do that:

b) new yorkers aren't all going to vote in lockstep with each other just like texans don't all vote in lockstep with each other.  out in the real world no one votes in blocks like that. 

this concern is complete bullshit.

Edited March 26, 2019 by elfenix

[ulukinatme 1768]

Just now, elfenix said:

we already do.

That's fairly accurate, if not for the swing states then who knows.  I guess I should have said "You can't allow a few states to further monopolize the election."

[Guest Lobo]

Just remember, a president---no matter his party, doesn't deserve 80% of his authority.  It's all been a lie from Jackson to Kennedy to Trump.  

They are to be a Head of State figurehead.  You want to be more like Europe?  Then fucking act like it.  Support a Head of Government.  And don't wait for your national savior.  

[elfenix 34661]

2 minutes ago, ulukinatme said:

That's fairly accurate, if not for the swing states then who knows.  I guess I should have said "You can't allow a few states to further monopolize the election."

again, how would you monopolize it?  you can't get everyone in new york to vote the same way.  you can't get everyone in california to vote the same way.  you can't get everyone in texas to vote the same way.

[ulukinatme 1768]

7 minutes ago, elfenix said:

again, how would you monopolize it?  you can't get everyone in new york to vote the same way.  you can't get everyone in california to vote the same way.  you can't get everyone in texas to vote the same way.

I'm just saying that something like 8 states make up almost half of the electoral college votes.  If you were to update the available EC votes by population, then California would end up with an even greater voting power than they already possess.  They already own over 10% of the electoral college votes. 

We can eliminate the Electoral College, but that doesn't mean one party or the other is definitely going to win the election.  What would happen is you would see candidates hitting the trail in places and states they don't normally go, strategies would change. The EC has been shown to be fairly balanced from regime to regime, anyone advocating for change is simply pandering to their side.

[ulukinatme 1768]

49 minutes ago, elfenix said:

a) we already do that:

b) new yorkers aren't all going to vote in lockstep with each other just like texans don't all vote in lockstep with each other.  out in the real world no one votes in blocks like that. 

this concern is complete bullshit.

Just saw your other post after it was edited.  It makes sense that over 90% of the campaign events are held in a handful of states.  It's a complex problem though, and you're right, it's probably been caused by the Electoral College itself.  When certain states vote consistently from election to election, it means candidates from the opposing party see little reason to spend time and resources in that location.  As a result, over time that state probably leans further and further in one direction.  I'm sure there's other factors involved.  Nevertheless, eliminating the Electoral College would mean a change to campaign tactics.  It certainly would even out campaign stops.  Trump would have focused more in places like California and New York, while Hillary would have spent more time in Texas and the Midwest.  Further though, you would see a huge shift in party politics.  There would be drastic policy changes by both sides to bring in new voters and not just stump for their existing base.  It would completely change politics in the US.  That's why I don't see them ever removing the EC, both sides are fairly well entrenched it seems.  

[Hank Kingsley 21602]

14 minutes ago, ulukinatme said:

Sure, forget half the country for 30 years, I'm sure that'll be balanced and work out great for long term posterity.  

 

You’re missing the entire point of my argument. The EC has created the political imbalance between the parties. The GOP policies are now curated to attract rural folks. And Dems have put too much focus on the coastal elites.

You want balance? One person, one vote. Let the American people dictate policy instead of 2 parties that only care about winning and haven’t acted in good faith.

[elfenix 34661]

2 minutes ago, ulukinatme said:

We can eliminate the Electoral College

let's

3 minutes ago, ulukinatme said:

but that doesn't mean one party or the other is definitely going to win the election.

ok

3 minutes ago, ulukinatme said:

What would happen is you would see candidates hitting the trail in places and states they don't normally go, strategies would change.

sounds good to me

3 minutes ago, ulukinatme said:

The EC has been shown to be fairly balanced from regime to regime

"balance" isn't necessarily a good thing.  leopards eating people's faces party and all that.

of course, what you claim as 'balance' has been little more than right wing policy wins for the last 40 years.  the republicans moved right following goldwater and the democrats moved right in reaction to reagan.  what was the last progressive policy win?  ACA?  no, progressives hated it.  free trade?  pretty sure progressives have hated that too.  1990 clean air act amendments?  maybe?  the things we're arguing about as a country nowadays are to the right of policy discussions from the early 70s.

[ulukinatme 1768]

1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

You’re missing the entire point of my argument. The EC has created the political imbalance between the parties. The GOP policies are now curated to attract rural folks. And Dems have put too much focus on the coastal elites.

You want balance? One person, one vote. Let the American people dictate policy instead of 2 parties that only care about winning and haven’t acted in good faith.

Sorry, it's hard to glean a rational point with a statement like "30 years of a GOP-free presidency in the future is the ideal scenario."

As I mentioned in the above reply to elfenix, I do agree that the EC has probably caused the current political climate and the imbalance from a campaign perspective.  If you were to eliminate the EC that doesn't necessarily mean decades of Democrat prosperity.  Campaigns would evolve along with the parties to combat the change.  Party policy would drastically change to reach new voters since the voters would have the ultimate power.  Republicans would be stumping in Cali and New York, Dems in the Midwest and Texas.  It certainly would be interesting to see how it shakes out, but that's exactly why I don't think either side will push for it.  I think they're fine with the existing system.  The last time Congress seriously tried to abolish the Electoral College was about 50 years ago.  The proposal was shut down in the Senate by both Democrats and Republicans in smaller states that felt like their voice wouldn't be heard.  So, for better or worse, I think we're stuck with the existing system until something drastic changes.

[Dolemite 143]

Electoral College abolition amendment

 

Quote

Numerous bills have been filed in the U.S. Congress to abolish or reduce the power of the Electoral College.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_abolition_amendment

[ulukinatme 1768]

10 minutes ago, Dolemite said:

Electoral College abolition amendment

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_abolition_amendment

There have been a number of proposals, but they almost always die in committee.  As mentioned, the last time Congress seriously discussed eliminating the EC was about 50 years ago and the measure was defeated by smaller states in the Senate.  For better or for worse, I think the EC is here to stay until something drastic changes in American politics.  The smaller states like the current system, and I think both parties are fairly well entrenched in their current forms.

Edited March 26, 2019 by ulukinatme

[FondrenRoad 4378]

42 minutes ago, ulukinatme said:

Sorry, it's hard to glean a rational point with a statement like "30 years of a GOP-free presidency in the future is the ideal scenario."

As I mentioned in the above reply to elfenix, I do agree that the EC has probably caused the current political climate and the imbalance from a campaign perspective.  If you were to eliminate the EC that doesn't necessarily mean decades of Democrat prosperity.  Campaigns would evolve along with the parties to combat the change.  Party policy would drastically change to reach new voters since the voters would have the ultimate power.  Republicans would be stumping in Cali and New York, Dems in the Midwest and Texas.  It certainly would be interesting to see how it shakes out, but that's exactly why I don't think either side will push for it.  I think they're fine with the existing system.  The last time Congress seriously tried to abolish the Electoral College was about 50 years ago.  The proposal was shut down in the Senate by both Democrats and Republicans in smaller states that felt like their voice wouldn't be heard.  So, for better or worse, I think we're stuck with the existing system until something drastic changes.

The people in smaller states still don't have their voices heard.  Most small states are consistently economically stagnant in spite of getting their GOP candidates in office.  It might have been okay had they not sold off all their farms and allowed Walmart to completely destroy their main streets, both GOP initiatives.  

They'd be better off voting for a Democrat who may actually give a shit about them instead of a conman who wants to make the rich get richer.  Laissez faire economics and bootstraps will never help West Virginia or Mississippi.  Government action will.

Edited March 26, 2019 by FondrenRoad

[Dolemite 143]

25 minutes ago, ulukinatme said:

There have been a number of proposals, but they almost always die in committee.  As mentioned, the last time Congress seriously discussed eliminating the EC was about 50 years ago and the measure was defeated by smaller states in the Senate.  For better or for worse, I think the EC is here to stay until something drastic changes in American politics.  The smaller states like the current system, and I think both parties are fairly well entrenched in their current forms.

If the Electoral College goes away we might as well dissolve the states, bury the Republic and become a pure Democracy. 

[Hank Kingsley 21602]

1 hour ago, ulukinatme said:

Sorry, it's hard to glean a rational point with a statement like "30 years of a GOP-free presidency in the future is the ideal scenario."

As I mentioned in the above reply to elfenix, I do agree that the EC has probably caused the current political climate and the imbalance from a campaign perspective.  If you were to eliminate the EC that doesn't necessarily mean decades of Democrat prosperity.  Campaigns would evolve along with the parties to combat the change.  Party policy would drastically change to reach new voters since the voters would have the ultimate power.  Republicans would be stumping in Cali and New York, Dems in the Midwest and Texas.  It certainly would be interesting to see how it shakes out, but that's exactly why I don't think either side will push for it.  I think they're fine with the existing system.  The last time Congress seriously tried to abolish the Electoral College was about 50 years ago.  The proposal was shut down in the Senate by both Democrats and Republicans in smaller states that felt like their voice wouldn't be heard.  So, for better or worse, I think we're stuck with the existing system until something drastic changes.

That's EXACTLY WHAT I WANT, numbnuts. Good grief.  You read one jab at the GOP and ignore the rest of my comments. 

I'm arguing that abolishing the EC would MAKE BOTH PARTIES BETTER. 

 

[ulukinatme 1768]

33 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

That's EXACTLY WHAT I WANT, numbnuts. Good grief.  You read one jab at the GOP and ignore the rest of my comments. 

I'm arguing that abolishing the EC would MAKE BOTH PARTIES BETTER. 

 

Your first statement began with: "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," so there was more than just the one statement.  My first comment was just pointing out that, despite it's flaws, the EC has been fairly balanced in picking Presidents from both parties.  I lean right, but I can at least see the flaws in either side holding too much power for too long.  

1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

The people in smaller states still don't have their voices heard.  Most small states are consistently economically stagnant in spite of getting their GOP candidates in office.  It might have been okay had they not sold off all their farms and allowed Walmart to completely destroy their main streets, both GOP initiatives.  

They'd be better off voting for a Democrat who may actually give a shit about them instead of a conman who wants to make the rich get richer.  Laissez faire economics and bootstraps will never help West Virginia or Mississippi.  Government action will.

I agree that the people would be better served if they didn't always stick to their party tendencies.  Continuing to vote for the same party every election means the status quo remains the same.  What makes you think Democrats would care any more about West Virginia or Mississippi though?  There are plenty of Democrat bastions with equal or greater problems.  Cities like LA, Detroit, and Seattle all have their share of major troubles that the left have been unable to solve.  Bottom line, government is failing the people.  Politicians are forgetting their constituents, so maybe we need more non-establishment candidates to send a message to government.  I'd vote for Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson as a Democrat in 2020 if it meant further putting the system on notice.

[Guest Lobo]

Out of curiosity, what are the smaller states that are solid blue?

Delaware, Hawaii, probably Minnesota, probably Maryland, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Oregon, maybe Iowa?

[ulukinatme 1768]

44 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Out of curiosity, what are the smaller states that are solid blue?

Delaware, Hawaii, probably Minnesota, probably Maryland, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Oregon, maybe Iowa?

There's probably a few more, but that looks about right aside from Iowa.  They're kind of a mixed bag.  Wiki says Governor, Senators, and their in state Senate and House are all Republican.  Their House Reps to DC are 3-1 in favor of Democrats though.  Partisan split is 32-31.1 in favor of Republicans overall.  

Edited March 27, 2019 by ulukinatme

[FondrenRoad 4378]

55 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Out of curiosity, what are the smaller states that are solid blue?

Delaware, Hawaii, probably Minnesota, probably Maryland, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Oregon, maybe Iowa?

I wouldn't call Iowa Dem and it differs dramatically from the rest of your list.  The rest are all urban majority states.  RI is practically a city-state.  CT and DE's population centers are part of bigger urban areas.  Oregon and Minnesota have a lot of open land, but most of their population surrounds their biggest cities.  Same with Hawaii.  Oahu is 2/3 of the state population.

Red states that contain a big city need small towns that are close enough together to have a lot of them, but far enough apart to keep them rural in nature.  Even with that feature, states like TX and GA have cities that are so big that they will eventually tip blue.  It will happen in TN at some point also. 

Forever red Southern states, like MS, AR, AL, and KY, screwed up by waiting too long on urbanization and allowed cities in nearby states to become regional powerhouses which steal their brightest residents.  They end up being the most bitterly red states who want to stop all growth.

Others like ID and MT are legitimately rural and usually vote GOP, but they don't vote for the bitter worst the GOP has to offer.

The divide is truly urban versus rural.

Except there are also states like LA which are just fucked up no matter what.  Dem/GOP and rural/urban blend.  Every part of it is the worst available possibility.  Hellhole cities.  Meth ridden small towns.  And politicians that would be too corrupt for Rwanda.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4998]

A lot of those conservative states didn't really have much choice on urbanization due to lack of natural resources or lack of advantageous geographical features like ports. Drive through Arkansas and you will be left wondering what exactly those people do for a living. They just have hills and forests with very little suitable land for agriculture. And the hills make much of the potential forestry industry unavailable economically. But then you go to the dollar general and see folks buying Mason jars is mass quantities and you get an idea of what a lot of these folks actually do.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

17 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

A lot of those conservative states didn't really have much choice on urbanization due to lack of natural resources or lack of advantageous geographical features like ports. Drive through Arkansas and you will be left wondering what exactly those people do for a living. They just have hills and forests with very little suitable land for agriculture. And the hills make much of the potential forestry industry unavailable economically. But then you go to the dollar general and see folks buying Mason jars is mass quantities and you get an idea of what a lot of these folks actually do.

The Mississippi River runs along the whole East side of Arkansas. Other states managed to put large cities on it. There is no reason that Memphis had to be only on the other side of the river.  

Mississippi itself also pretty much killed all its river cities by running I-55 far away from the river. And all the replacement towns on I-55 have all the charm and economy of a truck stop. No growth.

Meanwhile, Houston and Dallas were built by people moving from those states. Atlanta is built with people from Alabama. Didn't have to be that way if those states had a local urban economy to attract state residents. 

[wildcat09 29562]

15 hours ago, ulukinatme said:

Sorry, it's hard to glean a rational point with a statement like "30 years of a GOP-free presidency in the future is the ideal scenario."

As I mentioned in the above reply to elfenix, I do agree that the EC has probably caused the current political climate and the imbalance from a campaign perspective.  If you were to eliminate the EC that doesn't necessarily mean decades of Democrat prosperity.  Campaigns would evolve along with the parties to combat the change.  Party policy would drastically change to reach new voters since the voters would have the ultimate power.  Republicans would be stumping in Cali and New York, Dems in the Midwest and Texas.  It certainly would be interesting to see how it shakes out, but that's exactly why I don't think either side will push for it.  I think they're fine with the existing system.  The last time Congress seriously tried to abolish the Electoral College was about 50 years ago.  The proposal was shut down in the Senate by both Democrats and Republicans in smaller states that felt like their voice wouldn't be heard.  So, for better or worse, I think we're stuck with the existing system until something drastic changes.

These would be very good things.

[tantric superman 4668]

On 3/24/2019 at 11:17 AM, Onboard 2.0 said:

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.

I saved civics (at my prep school which was on the chopping block)

What did you ever do?

[Huckleberry 34407]

On 3/24/2019 at 10:16 AM, 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. 

 

 

Two posts later...

On 3/24/2019 at 10:21 AM, 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. 

 

You shouldn't lie to yourself so blatantly. It's rude and you might get mad at yourself.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

I saved civics (at my prep school which was on the chopping block)

What did you ever do?

Good for you Max Fisher.

[Huckleberry 34407]

Also, I've already solved this multiple times. 

Obviously this topic comes up every four years, so here we are in 2016. In an effort to keep what could be a ridiculously long post as short as possible I will list some of the alternatives below, discussing each briefly, then conclude with the one I would favor most. This is intended to be a thought exercise where hopefully adult-type people can discuss things on a theoretical level and do so civilly. If you come into this thread and start any partisan shit then fuck you and stay out.

A. Current system

Nobody seems to like it all that much, but the people that really hate it are the ones that lose each election. I like the current system in one respect in that it is based on the idea that each State has an inherent value simply by being a member of the union but also reflects the idea that more heavily populated States reflect the will of a greater number of citizens. Detractors of the first part of that sentence like to say things like "land shouldn't have a vote" but I simply view that as far too dismissive of the idea that the nation is a union of distinct States. Those that are familiar with the political posts I've made over the years are well aware that I am a huge fan of the Federal concept in that I believe that the various States should be free to have far different laws on many topics because that presents American citizens with 50 choices of where they want to live. They can vote with their residence in such a system, and the voice of migration would over the long haul have a major say in laws and political developments.

Why do I not like it? Because despite each State's ability to determine how they apportion the delegates the vast majority go with a winner-take-all approach and I simply don't like how that completely devalues votes in States that are solidly one party or the other. I think there is a happy medium in there somewhere.

B. Straight popular vote

Nonstarter for me because as noted above I like the fact that States have inherent value. Plus logistically at some point there will be a race so close that a recount is needed and all ballots nationwide will need to be transported to one location. Just an absurd visual. Plus then you raise the question of runoff elections if it's a straight popular vote considering that 17 times nobody has received more than 50% of the popular vote. Two-round systems are used in dozens of nations where a popular vote decides the chief executive.

C. Electors assigned proportionally to popular vote

This is just putting a different label on the straight popular vote. Basically holding on to the 538 electors simply for tradition's sake. Nah.

D. Assign 2 electors to each State winner, the rest assigned proportionally

This is an attempt to mimic the fact that the electors for each State represent their two Senators and their current Representative count. The reason I don't like this one is because it ignores the fact that Congress was actually set up so that bills must pass both the Senate and the House, so while the Senate is considered the upper chamber the fact remains that they are at least nominally equal in effecting laws. Which leads me to my two favorite options, one of which is I absolutely do not favor due to political realities.

E. 2 electors assigned to each State winner, one elector assigned to the winner of each Congressional district

This one gets to the heart of the people electing the President by speaking in place of their elected Congressmen. This would actually be great in a world where Congressional districts are drawn by computer based on population maps that are devoid of political or demographic information. But holy shit can you imagine the gerrymandering fights when each district helps decide the entire Executive branch instead of merely 1/535th of Congress? So it's a no-go for now. Which leaves me with...

F. Half of a State's electors (rounded up for States with an odd number) to the winner, the remainder assigned proportionally

The Senate being traditionally the upper chamber as mentioned, a State with an odd number of electors will assign the extra elector to the State winner. The remaining electors are assigned proportionally to the popular vote within the state. For example, in 2012 the Presidential results in Texas were

Mitt Romney - 57.17%
Barack Obama - 41.38%
Other People - 1.45%

In this system that would give Romney 19 electors for the State victory, then the remaining 19 would be assigned proportionally. Romney 10.86, Obama 7.86, Other People 0.28 which leaves us with Romney 11 and Obama 8. Romney takes the Texas electors 30-8 in that election instead of 38-0. Similarly California becomes Obama 44, Romney 10, Johnson 1 instead of Obama 55-0. Since I know people will wonder, the overall count in 2012 was originally 332-206 in favor of Obama, with this system it would have been Obama 303, Romney 234, Johnson 1.

I'd be willing to calculate other elections if anyone's interested.

Obviously this will never happen but I like it best so that means it's best.

[Hank Kingsley 21602]

5 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Two posts later...

You shouldn't lie to yourself so blatantly. It's rude and you might get mad at yourself.

If a Democrat won the popular vote once in the last 30 years I'd be saying the same thing. 

The electoral college, in these modern times, is fucking stupid. 

 

[Hank Kingsley 21602]

Maybe I should phrase it this way. 

Are there current/former Republicans that are ashamed of what the GOP has become?  The white nationalist, evangelical, Make America 1958 Again party?

IMO, a national popular vote for President would change that in a hurry. 

 

[TwiceHorn 31995]

15 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Maybe I should phrase it this way. 

Are there current/former Republicans that are ashamed of what the GOP has become?  The white nationalist, evangelical, Make America 1958 Again party?

IMO, a national popular vote for President would change that in a hurry. 

 

There are several dozen of them on the surl alone.

[JustBecause 112]

On 3/24/2019 at 10:16 AM, 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. 

 

 

If you think the current push to eliminate the EC isn’t about getting a D in the White House you are incredibly naive.

 

I dont think you’re naive 

[Hank Kingsley 21602]

I agree. But there are positive outcomes for both parties with a popular vote that Republicans don't want to discuss.  Why? Because they want to win the Presidency and know the EC is the biggest weapon in their arsenal. 

 

 

[Hank Kingsley 21602]

Democrats want a popular vote. 

Republicans are actively suppressing votes. 

Advantage: Republicans?

 

[JustBecause 112]

On 3/24/2019 at 11:05 AM, 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. 

Yup.  It’s the United States of America not United State of America. 

[Huckleberry 34407]

2 minutes ago, JustBecause said:

Yup.  It’s the United States of America not United State of America. 

This ignores quite a bit of American history, though. Even simple and seemingly trivial things like the shift from the United States being a plural noun to being a singular noun.

There are good arguments on either side of this but it shouldn't be too much to ask to keep the discussion on this board on the up and up and philosophical. Obviously there's no way the discussion in Washington stays that way.

@Michael Knight's suggestion earlier in the thread to increase the size of the House is spot-on. Not only is that the right thing to do to keep the government closer to the people, it also will help with some of the issues here. And the oft-cited objection in terms of the number of people in Washington bears little weight in the age of Skype and Facetime. There is no reason every legislator has to be in Washington all the time. In fact, making it so most Congressmen and Congresswomen aren't in Washington all the time will help significantly. Right now the halls of Congress are like shooting fish in a barrel for lobbyists. Make them have to fly around the country to visit every voting legislator instead of a one-stop shop for special interests.

Imagine that, Representatives more easily reached by their constituents than by special interest lobbyists.

[TwiceHorn 31995]

I suppose I should clarify something.  My seemingly endless disquisition on the origin of the electoral college is because I studied it in law school, at notorious bastion of conservatism and white privilege The University of Texas School of Law under notorious white supremacist Harold Bruff (OLC for Jimmy Carter).  Meaning. I firmly believe it didnt have any particularly insidious origin meant to disenfranchise people or people of color.  I am aware that some of my education here in public schools in Texas may be deficient in its racial sensitivity or outright biased against poors and browns, but I don't believe that to be the case with respect to the constitutional origin of the electoral college.  It was a bulwark against imprudent popular choices for president (mobocracy) and a way to insert the states into the process in such a way that the larger states couldn't subjugate the smaller ones.

That said, ultimately the choice between an electoral college or something like it and a popular vote is like onions.  Some people like em, some people don't.  They each have advantages and disadvantages.  There is no right answer.

[Horn Dog 10156]

37 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It was a bulwark against imprudent popular choices for president. 

It failed miserably in 2016.

[tantric superman 4668]

56 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I suppose I should clarify something.  My seemingly endless disquisition on the origin of the electoral college is because I studied it in law school, at notorious bastion of conservatism and white privilege The University of Texas School of Law under notorious white supremacist Harold Bruff (OLC for Jimmy Carter).  Meaning. I firmly believe it didnt have any particularly insidious origin meant to disenfranchise people or people of color. 

Although I was too slow and small and unskilled to be invited to join the Legal Eagles, I did find my white wife at UT School of Law. 

I likes the ladies at bastions of whiteness.

[tantric superman 4668]

2 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

The electoral college, in these modern times, is fucking stupid. 

I actually think that such an institution, at a time of deep polarization, is especially valuable.

Whether or not they agree with one side or another politically, changing the election to a pure popular vote removes any semblance of an idea that the voters in small states will have a voice in the election of the President.  That's a bad look that drives us further into polarization.

[TwiceHorn 31995]

31 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

It failed miserably in 2016.

Fair point.  I do know there were a number of faithless electors in 2016, I don't know how that compares with other elections.

[TwiceHorn 31995]

9 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

I actually think that such an institution, at a time of deep polarization, is especially valuable.

Whether or not they agree with one side or another politically, changing the election to a pure popular vote removes any semblance of an idea that the voters in small states will have a voice in the election of the President.  That's a bad look that drives us further into polarization.

Yeah, well-stated.  Yours and Fondren's post on the other side kind of set out the onions/no-onions choice.