Best Discussion of the Electoral College

[What Would Jesus Do?]

This isn't a recent interview, but it seems to cover all the important stuff. Might change a few minds.

The case for abolishing the Electoral College

Kamala Harris currently leads Donald Trump in national polls by more than 3 percentage points according to the website 538. But if there’s one thing that recent elections have taught us, it is that a victory in the popular vote does not guarantee a spot in the oval office. This is, of course...

dianerehm.org

 

[TC Nole OX]

The electoral college is a relic of slavery. It needs to gp asap

 

[StormHawk42]

I used to be more protective of the EC because I thought it was better to give all states representation.

Have totally changed my tune though and not because it’s weighted against D’s. The EC by its existence depresses voter turnout because why would a California R or Alabama D vote in the presidential election? The state with the most republicans in the country is California and their votes don’t mean sh!t.

People are scared of the big cities controlling everything but suburban areas are usually more middle or lean conservative and constitute a huge portion of the population.

So in the hopes of giving every state a voice, really we leave it up to 6-7 states. Every single year. It’s a wildly undemocratic system.

Not to mention it would produce more centrist candidates.

 

[noleclone2]

It’s a wonderful system! For the 9 elections of 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024, the Republicans will have won only one popular vote. Yet because of the highly functional and not at all outdated Electoral College, they still have a great shot of having their fourth presidency slipping in through in 2024. Heck, they almost had a fifth had Biden not won by over 4%. It was still close. Why change? Totally fair.

 

[noleclone2]

Jokes aside, to me the easiest and quickest compromise is to update the population break down. The number was derived in the 20s and now each vote (and each member of Congress) represent almost 4 times the population. Get that number up to 2000 and the upward rounding bias all the small states get goes away.

 

[TJ8869]

The EC has been a frequent topic on this board since the 2016 election and I can’t recall a single Democrat acknowledging that the popular vote might not have gone to Hillary if the objective had been to win the popular vote. Anyone want to be first?

 

[Tom Paris]

I used to be more protective of the EC because I thought it was better to give all states representation.

Have totally changed my tune though and not because it’s weighted against D’s. The EC by its existence depresses voter turnout because why would a California R or Alabama D vote in the presidential election? The state with the most republicans in the country is California and their votes don’t mean sh!t.

People are scared of the big cities controlling everything but suburban areas are usually more middle or lean conservative and constitute a huge portion of the population.

So in the hopes of giving every state a voice, really we leave it up to 6-7 states. Every single year. It’s a wildly undemocratic system.

Not to mention it would produce more centrist candidates.

If the Republicans would come up with moderate candidates that refused to cater to the evangelical and MAGA right, I don't know if they would ever lose a presidential election. Trump is the worst candidate, by far, of my life and he has a solid chance to win. One slip up by Kamala - because Democrats for some reason aren't allowed to have any type of flaw, and Trump will win again.

The other thing is, the people who call Kamala or other democrats radical, can't really explain how their ideas, THEIR ACTUAL IDEAS, are radical. For example, The Green New Deal. If one actually reads it the vast majority is common sense, but Fox and other right wing talking heads have, once again, terrified most of the Republican base. Hell, there was a guy a few years ago who actually had Tucker Carlson agreeing with the principles of democratic socialism. Basically none of it is scary. Evangelicals trying to create policy for the rest of us is scary.

 

[Tom Paris]

The EC has been a frequent topic on this board since the 2016 election and I can’t recall a single Democrat acknowledging that the popular vote might not have gone to Hillary if the objective had been to win the popular vote. Anyone want to be first?

Might not? Sure...but I highly doubt it.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I used to be more protective of the EC because I thought it was better to give all states representation.

Have totally changed my tune though and not because it’s weighted against D’s. The EC by its existence depresses voter turnout because why would a California R or Alabama D vote in the presidential election? The state with the most republicans in the country is California and their votes don’t mean sh!t.

People are scared of the big cities controlling everything but suburban areas are usually more middle or lean conservative and constitute a huge portion of the population.

So in the hopes of giving every state a voice, really we leave it up to 6-7 states. Every single year. It’s a wildly undemocratic system.

Not to mention it would produce more centrist candidates.

One of the points Wegman draws attention to is that the EC is the main reason why only 4-7 "battleground" states actually count. So it isn't just that California Rs and Texas Ds are effectively disenfranchised. That's true for the millions of minority-party voters in 44-47 states every election.

That might not be so bad if those battleground states were very representative of America but is that true?

Meanwhile, presidents of both parties send more money to those battleground states. Nice for them, but what about the rest of us?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Another thing I learned from the interview is that the Founders did not anticipate that states would set up their EC systems as winner-take-all systems. When Madison realized that was happening, he advocated a constitutional ban of state-wide winner-take-all systems.

 

[noleclone2]

The EC has been a frequent topic on this board since the 2016 election and I can’t recall a single Democrat acknowledging that the popular vote might not have gone to Hillary if the objective had been to win the popular vote. Anyone want to be first?

That’s because that is just a silly hypothetical impossible to prove whereas Hillary winning the general election is an historical fact. Nice try TJ.

 

[MitchLL]

It’s a wonderful system! For the 9 elections of 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024, the Republicans will have won only one popular vote. Yet because of the highly functional and not at all outdated Electoral College, they still have a great shot of having their fourth presidency slipping in through in 2024. Heck, they almost had a fifth had Biden not won by over 4%. It was still close. Why change? Totally fair.

So...you like minority rule???
That's what is outdated and how dictatorships operate.

 

[SSG T]

I would be in fa or of keeping the EC if...

We base both the House and the EC directly on population of lowest population state. So if Wyoming has, say, 600k people, they get 1 Rep and 1 EC. If you have over 1.2 mil, you get 2, 1.8mil you get 3 etc. Then the EC votes are split based on district. So if a state has 20 EV, and candidate A wins in 15, the other wins in 5, the votes get split 15/5.

And ALL districts are divided by a non-partisan group from outside the state.

If that isn't agreed on, go to straight popular vote the way every other elected official is selected.

 

[seminole97]

I used to be more protective of the EC because I thought it was better to give all states representation.

Have totally changed my tune though and not because it’s weighted against D’s. The EC by its existence depresses voter turnout because why would a California R or Alabama D vote in the presidential election? The state with the most republicans in the country is California and their votes don’t mean sh!t.

In what electoral system do the losing side’s votes mean shit?

So in the hopes of giving every state a voice, really we leave it up to 6-7 states. Every single year. It’s a wildly undemocratic system.

Correct. It’s an election held by 50 states, not X million people.

 

[jamesvanderwulf]

The founding fathers did not envision a " two party " system. They assumed there would be multiple presidential candidates in every election and the electoral votes would be split up among the candidates. Impossible to change now, hell the ERA amendment has never made it...

 

[StormHawk42]

In what electoral system do the losing side’s votes mean shit?



Correct. It’s an election held by 50 states, not X million people.

If you are a Wyoming Democrat, why would you bother voting? That’s the argument I’m making: electoral turnout would instantly increase because people would know their votes mean something.

 

[jonesy5960]

The EC disenfranchises most of the American electorate. The reality is that the vast majority of votes don't matter. Getting rid of it would do more to raise voter participation rates and ensure a representative government than anything else.

 

[StormHawk42]

So...you like minority rule???
That's what is outdated and how dictatorships operate.

I think he was being sarcastic brah

 

[MitchLL]

I think he was being sarcastic brah

👍👍👍👍👍

 

[jonesy5960]

If you are a Wyoming Democrat, why would you bother voting? That’s the argument I’m making: electoral turnout would instantly increase because people would know their votes mean something.

It's like there is no such thing as a national election for a national leader. We have 50 individual elections and only 6 or 7 are truly competitive every year. The other 43 states needn't even bother.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

The EC has been a frequent topic on this board since the 2016 election and I can’t recall a single Democrat acknowledging that the popular vote might not have gone to Hillary if the objective had been to win the popular vote. Anyone want to be first?

Probably not, but certainly possible. As a small-d democrat, I'd be delighted to ditch the EC. Let's see if Rs can win on their merits.

Are you with me?

 

[cohawk]

I would be in fa or of keeping the EC if...

We base both the House and the EC directly on population of lowest population state. So if Wyoming has, say, 600k people, they get 1 Rep and 1 EC. If you have over 1.2 mil, you get 2, 1.8mil you get 3 etc. Then the EC votes are split based on district. So if a state has 20 EV, and candidate A wins in 15, the other wins in 5, the votes get split 15/5.

And ALL districts are divided by a non-partisan group from outside the state.

If that isn't agreed on, go to straight popular vote the way every other elected official is selected.

Let's get rid of the participation trophy. Which is what the Electoral College is.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

The EC has been a frequent topic on this board since the 2016 election and I can’t recall a single Democrat acknowledging that the popular vote might not have gone to Hillary if the objective had been to win the popular vote. Anyone want to be first?

Anything is possible. But unlikely unless you can show that Republican votes in blue states are depressed more due to the EC than Dem votes in Red states it seems unlikely.

Taking away the EC would also likely change what policies the Republicans back as it would force them to try to win over the middle electorate more than just needing to win over a rural base with overpowered votes in the senate and the EC.

But we can't know anything unless we take it away and find out. And I suggest the principle that we all get an equal say in who the president should be no matter if we live in the middle of no where in Wyoming or we live in the heart of LA.

I used to be more protective of the EC because I thought it was better to give all states representation.

Have totally changed my tune though and not because it’s weighted against D’s. The EC by its existence depresses voter turnout because why would a California R or Alabama D vote in the presidential election? The state with the most republicans in the country is California and their votes don’t mean sh!t.

People are scared of the big cities controlling everything but suburban areas are usually more middle or lean conservative and constitute a huge portion of the population.

So in the hopes of giving every state a voice, really we leave it up to 6-7 states. Every single year. It’s a wildly undemocratic system.

Not to mention it would produce more centrist candidates.

This has been the thing for me that I've been wondering why I vote recently. I live in a blue county in a red state. But the thing is if you look at what I'm actually voting for there are almost no close elections. The presidential race might be close nationally but it's not close in Indiana. So it becomes this situation where I can tell you who is going to win each race before the election happens without looking at any polls and I would almost never be wrong.

We need to get rid of the EC, no question but we also need to make other changes to make our government more representative. Proportional representation and ranked choice voting would be at the top of my list.

Of course the biggest problem with this is that the D's and the R's are both heavily invested in maintaining the duopoly. So they arn't going to pass those changes no matter how many people wanted them.

 

[noleclone2]

So...you like minority rule???
That's what is outdated and how dictatorships operate.

lol. It’s called sarcasm.

 

[LuciousBDragon]

Simple breakdown:

Electoral College is one way the framers thought to protect the minority since we are not a direct democracy.

Party in the current majority - does not like EC
Party not in the current majority - likes the EC

So, with the EC. Someone will always be happy and someone will always be unhappy.

Without the EC. Someone will always be happy and someone will always be unhappy.

 

[Jerome Silberman]

The EC has been a frequent topic on this board since the 2016 election and I can’t recall a single Democrat acknowledging that the popular vote might not have gone to Hillary if the objective had been to win the popular vote. Anyone want to be first?

I have.

A straight popular vote very well could have benefited the GOP. I think that is probably not the case since MAGA:30, but it certainly was at one point. Going the Nebraska or Maine route would likely be even more beneficial to the GOP in the short term.

 

[Jerome Silberman]

Simple breakdown:

Electoral College is one way the framers thought to protect the minority since we are not a direct democracy.

Party in the current majority - does not like EC
Party not in the current majority - likes the EC

So, with the EC. Someone will always be happy and someone will always be unhappy.

Without the EC. Someone will always be happy and someone will always be unhappy.

Nope! Good one though.

It was about appeasing people that wanted their farm equipment to be counted in a census, but also didn't want to acknowledge that that farm equipment was actually just people they were enslaving.

 

[SA_Hawk]

If the Republicans would come up with moderate candidates that refused to cater to the evangelical and MAGA right, I don't know if they would ever lose a presidential election. Trump is the worst candidate, by far, of my life and he has a solid chance to win. One slip up by Kamala - because Democrats for some reason aren't allowed to have any type of flaw, and Trump will win again.

The other thing is, the people who call Kamala or other democrats radical, can't really explain how their ideas, THEIR ACTUAL IDEAS, are radical. For example, The Green New Deal. If one actually reads it the vast majority is common sense, but Fox and other right wing talking heads have, once again, terrified most of the Republican base. Hell, there was a guy a few years ago who actually had Tucker Carlson agreeing with the principles of democratic socialism. Basically none of it is scary. Evangelicals trying to create policy for the rest of us is scary.

You first. Democrats are running the most liberal Senator in the history of the United States for president.

If the Democrats would come up with moderate candidates that refused to cater to the progressives and America hating Hamas left,

 

[MitchLL]

lol. It’s called sarcasm.

Yeah, sorry about that.😁

 

[Jerome Silberman]

The founding fathers did not envision a " two party " system. They assumed there would be multiple presidential candidates in every election and the electoral votes would be split up among the candidates. Impossible to change now, hell the ERA amendment has never made it...

Then they shouldn't have immediately created the parties.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

The founding fathers did not envision a " two party " system. They assumed there would be multiple presidential candidates in every election and the electoral votes would be split up among the candidates. Impossible to change now, hell the ERA amendment has never made it...

The FF’s tried to work the system so the House would choose the president. The idea that black people or women would EVER have a say wasn’t even in their radar. They allocated population so the southern states would buy in since they had a massive population that counted as congressional representatives and EC votes but those people had no voice.

The FF’s weren’t saints and they got shit wrong. Our system of govt is one of those things they f’ed up.

 

[seminole97]

If you are a Wyoming Democrat, why would you bother voting?

Is it a bet on who will win, or voicing your preference?

Your argument is that the Republicans in New York and Californian and the Democrats in Wyoming and Idaho shouldn’t bother to vote, because they’re not going to win.

Have you never voted for a candidate or cause you thought might lose?

 

[StormHawk42]

Simple breakdown:

Electoral College is one way the framers thought to protect the minority since we are not a direct democracy.

Party in the current majority - does not like EC
Party not in the current majority - likes the EC

So, with the EC. Someone will always be happy and someone will always be unhappy.

Without the EC. Someone will always be happy and someone will always be unhappy.

I certainly don’t speak for all but I wouldn’t be unhappy with a system where one guy gets more votes than the other guy.

It’ll never change unfortunately. Only way it even becomes a talking point is if R’s lose the EC but win the popular vote a couple cycles in a row.

 

[MitchLL]

I have.

A straight popular vote very well could have benefited the GOP. I think that is probably not the case since MAGA:30, but it certainly was at one point. Going the Nebraska or Maine route would likely be even more beneficial to the GOP in the short term.

Exactly...if Republicans would moderate their message to appeal to more voters, they wouldn't have to rely on the EC.

This is what the GOP has become...a Party that caters to special interest groups.

It's bullshit.

 

[StormHawk42]

Is it a bet on who will win, or voicing your preference?

Your argument is that the Republicans in New York and Californian and the Democrats in Wyoming and Idaho shouldn’t bother to vote, because they’re not going to win.

Have you never voted for a candidate or cause you thought might lose?

I vote every time but many don’t

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Then they shouldn't have immediately created the parties.

Parties were inevitable. They just didn’t envision there being only two even though their system virtually locks that in.

 

[thewop]

Jokes aside, to me the easiest and quickest compromise is to update the population break down. The number was derived in the 20s and now each vote (and each member of Congress) represent almost 4 times the population. Get that number up to 2000 and the upward rounding bias all the small states get goes away.

I'd go for this, with one caveat. Population = citizens. Not voters, not adults, not green cards, not undocumented. Just citizens, young and old.

 

[Tom Paris]

One of the points Wegman draws attention to is that the EC is the main reason why only 4-7 "battleground" states actually count. So it isn't just that California Rs and Texas Ds are effectively disenfranchised. That's true for the millions of minority-party voters in 44-47 states every election.

That might not be so bad if those battleground states were very representative of America but is that true?

Meanwhile, presidents of both parties send more money to those battleground states. Nice for them, but what about the rest of us?

Iowa used to sort of matter. Now my vote means nothing other than winning the popular vote argument.

 

[noleclone2]

Iowa used to sort of matter. Now my vote means nothing other than winning the popular vote argument.

Funny you say that because this is a big part of problem. There are a lot less swing states now and have been for a bit. Getting less and less every election.

 

[LuciousBDragon]

Nope! Good one though.

It was about appeasing people that wanted their farm equipment to be counted in a census, but also didn't want to acknowledge that that farm equipment was actually just people they were enslaving.

Would de Tocqueville agree with you or just the greasy haired adjunct professor who says that?