The democrats would have changed their campaign strategy as well so the hypothetical is pretty ridiculous.
Best Discussion of the Electoral College
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
The democrats would have changed their campaign strategy as well so the hypothetical is pretty ridiculous.
It’s a historical fact that she won something that neither candidate was aiming for. You can’t just assume that the popular vote winner when neither candidate was concerned about winning the popular vote would also win the popular vote when both candidates were trying to win it.
Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on campaigning. Countless thousands of campaign workers help support their candidate. Currently these resources are deployed for the specific purpose of winning the Electoral College vote. If the objective was to win the popular vote then all of that money and manpower would be deployed very differently. There’s simply no way to know what the outcome would have been.
I'm more-or-less OK with that. But here's a slightly different take....
There are ~334 million Americans (2020 census). There are 435 US House Reps. There are 535 EC Electors.
Here's how many votes each state should have in the US House.
State population / national population X 435
So, take Wyoming
577K / 334M X 435 = .75 votes
So Wyoming's single Rep would cast it's .75 votes for or against the legislation under consideration. That's how much it's vote should be worth, based on Wyoming's population.
I know, I know, fractions are hard.
Really? Give me a break.
Or take Texas
29.1M /334M X 435 = 37.90 votes
Or Michigan
10.1M / 334M X 435 = 13.15 votes
California = 51.44 votes
Iowa = 4.15
Maryland = 8.05
As it turns out, most states' delegation sizes in the House are not too far off what their vote calculation should be. Except for the smaller states. And when you add 2 to every state's House total to make their EC tally, you greatly exaggerate the distortion in favor of the smaller states.
So, for example, Wyoming's population is just 1.7% of the US population, but its EC delegation accounts for 5.6% of the EC tally - more than 3 times its "deserved" weight based on population.
So much for one man, one vote.
Getting rid of the EC would force every candidate towards the middle where the majority of the country sits. It would force them to appeal and campaign in all 50 states vs the few that matter today. A Dem vote in Texas would be just as impactful as a Republican vote in California. Everyone participates. Everybody in favor of democracy wins.
That seems to be the HROT conventional wisdom but is it true? I suspect not.
We libs are fond of pointing out that most Americans actually like progressive policies better - but they are seldom given a chance to vote for them.
Perhaps if presidential candidates had to campaign everywhere - instead of concentrating on the few battleground states which are almost never liberal states - those progressive values would get a more robust presentation and would attract a lot more enthusiasm and votes.
I'm certainly willing to take that chance.
You just described Mitt Romney and Democrats like ciggy called him the most dangerous candidate in American history. Accused him of murdering some lady's husband. Ripped him for saying he had "binders full of women" that he wanted to employ and acted like his correct statement that 47% of the electorate won't vote for him was some sort of disqualifying statement. He lost. So did John McCain.
Last edited:
Nice try. It’s a historical fact that Republicans have won only one popular vote since 92. You can play hypotheticals all you want. I can counter and say the reason Hillary did not beat Trump far worse in general and win the EC was because many democrats and independents did not vote for her because they thought Trump had no chance. As you said so perfectly yourself in your last sentence, there’s simply no way to know the outcome. As such it is so a clasic red herring to insert your OPINION on what we do know as 100% verifiable facts: Democrats have won the general election in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008, 2012, 2016, and 2020. Heck now that I type that and knowing they will also in 2024, it makes your theory more a stretch.
I think there are progressive policies that are demonstrably more popular such as gun control, family leave, abortion, etc.
I think there are also progressive polices that are demonstrably less popular such as on the border and choosing to leave trans sports up to the school sports governing bodies.
The left tends to rightly point to the things they are demonstrably more popular on but ignore the places they are less popular.
Doubtful,.. Eliminate the electoral college and I think it's more likely that candidates will tend to concentrate their campaigning inside the most populous areas of the country,.. Which would more than likely cause them to move left of center to satisfy that voting block.
I doubt that, a lot of people live in suburbs and rurally as well. The strategy would be to build the biggest coalition possible knowing that a lot of people arn't fully invested in either party.
You act like NY and LA have enough people in them to rule us all.
Mitt was a vulture capitalist.
Some people liked that about him.
For me and others, it was a disqualifier.
That said, he wasn't too bad for a Republican.
I don't act like that at all, so stop exaggerating,... It would take a lot more than NY and LA to carry the day, but implement this and places like Iowa, New Hampshire and Wyoming will never see a presidential candidate, nor will their concerns be given fair consideration...
Campaign where the people are? How undemocratic.
There are way more Republicans in California than Wyoming, the Dakotas, Montana, Oklahoma and Utah combined and yet they have no say in who the next president is. Ponder how democratic that is.
We are not a federal democracy,.. nothing to ponder.
What is the actual democrat policy on the border? What is the democrat policy on trans sports? Actual POLICY for trans athletes, and how many people does it affect? This trans fear affects next to nobody when you compare it to the things you rightly mentioned in your first sentence. I believe the democrats aren't any more "radical" about the border than the Republicans. It's a chosen BS narrative that Ted Cruz decided to push 2 weeks into Biden's presidency. We both know "open borders" is a myth or outright lie.
Last edited:
Call it whatever you want. We absolutely are a representative democracy based on democratic principles. Anybody suggesting otherwise is simply being obtuse.
You just defined the EC, you did not defend it.
At some point, to defend it, you have to say it’s okay for some people’s vote to be worth more than others.
You think those are progressive policies? How many people here have a clue where progressives stand on the border? All we hear is the lying nonsense from Trump. We never hear either the truth or what progressives want to see.
Ditto for trans stuff. I'm a progressive, and even I have no clue what the progressive position on trans issues is - or even if there is one - beyond asserting that trans folks are entitled to the same rights as everyone else.
Yes, yes, the MAGAs will tell you what we progressive are trying to "get away with." Shame on anyone who accepts their lying characterizations on that or anything.
You know who favors open borders? Libertarians.
You know who else favors open borders? Businesses looking for cheap, controllable labor.
They already don’t for the general election. The candidates only campaign where the outcome is in dispute/worth enough EC votes.
On this point, why don't we allocate the electoral votes pro rata actual votes received in the same manner as primaries/delegates are allocated? So Iowa has 6 electoral votes, Trump gets 55% of actual votes, Harris gets 45%, Trump gets 3.3 electoral votes, Harris gets 2.7. Then every vote counts.
I think open borders is a myth. However I believe the mood of the country as much as I don't like it is for extremely harsh measures.
The single biggest problem with the EC is, essentially, the biggest problem with the House. Over representation of small states.
CA has 67 times as many people as Wyoming, they should have 67 times as many EV and Representatives. Currently, CA has 54 EV, Wyoming has 3. So, despite having 67 times as many people, they have 18 times as many EV. That needs corrected.
CA has 67 times as many people as Wyoming, they should have 67 times as many EV and Representatives. Currently, CA has 54 EV, Wyoming has 3. So, despite having 67 times as many people, they have 18 times as many EV. That needs corrected.
It’s a historical fact that the popular vote was a meaningless metric because no candidate was focusing their efforts on winning the popular vote.
I’m not “playing” a hypothetical. I’m telling you that it’s impossible to know who would have won the popular vote if the candidates had been trying to win the popular vote. The only hypothetical here is you deciding that because Al Gore and Hillary Clinton won the meaningless popular vote then they certainly would have won it absent the Electoral College.
Gore might have won it. Clinton might have won it. But we simply don’t know. We can’t know. You’re the one assuming a hypothetical. This is Logic 101. I don’t know why it’s so difficult for you to understand.
Should the UN have representation proportional to population?
Why, or why not?
Should India’s vote be less per person than Cuba’s?
Can you conceive an argument in favor of such an arrangement?
You talk a lot but say very little. How many candidates are visiting Iowa, New Hampshire, and Iowa this year???
All of their concerns will be addressed through the election process. Today there is no reason for a Dem to vote in Iowa or Wyoming or a Republican to vote in New Hampshire. They are effectively disenfranchised. Get rid of the EC and every vote counts in every state.
I've never liked the EC. The team with the most votes should win. I've said that even when I was a Republican. It's a participation trophy at best.
It has nothing to do with protecting the minority and everything to do with slavery. Saying otherwise is dishonest. This is why we need to be taught real history in the US. Not some filtred white Christian nationalist crap.
The U.N.? Seriously?? You're using a collection of treaties and agreements between nations to argue against the people of a democratic sovereign nation choosing their elected officials through the principle of one person one vote?
This argument is proof that you have no logical argument in support of your position. You must have dug deep into right wing world to find this little nugget.
That's idiotic. You do not know California. It's pretty obvious from this comment. There are more Republicans in California than any other state. The idea that someone wins with fewer votes is a participation trophy.
How about an article?
The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists
The Founding Fathers had something particular in mind when they set up the U.S. presidential election system: slavery
Seriously, why doesn’t the UN adopt proportional representation?
Can you think of any reasons why they don’t do so?
The EU also has representative structures that reflect the sovereignty, and not the population, of their members. And yet there is no legacy of slavery to explain it. Can you think of reasons why they did that?
Or is it beyond your grasp entirely?
The arguments surely exist, I’m trying to discern if you’re aware of them, or can come up with any.
Well?
By the 3rd POTUS and 4 term of the existence of the office the dual party model was solidified. I know that Washington warned against factions, but apparently that warning didn't make it to his right hand man.
If you don’t like the constitution **** you. Find another country. It was never intended for this country to be a democracy but a republic.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
Perhaps not, but that's not unusual for historians...especially those had a vested interest in the politics of the day. It would be a mistake to conflate the philosophy of the day and it's views on liberty and the realpolitik concessions that were made in order to consolidate enough power to make the American Revolution anything but a route.
