Should the United States scrap the electoral college?

[tshile]

6 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

but the founders likely could not have foreseen such a dramatic population disparity between states which would result in such out of balance representation. The way the guy frames it in the tweet is counterproductive. 

but they designed a system that specifically takes population density into account - the house. 
 

they clearly designed the senate to give equal representation to the states. Which is why there’s nothing about population in it. 
 

 

[The Evil Genius]

4 minutes ago, tshile said:

but they designed a system that specifically takes population density into account - the house. 
 

they clearly designed the senate to give equal representation to the states. Which is why there’s nothing about population in it. 
 

 

 

Equal representation to the States was 💯 rooted in protecting slavery and only slavery.

Edited May 11, 2023 by The Evil Genius

[tshile]

1 minute ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

Equal representation to the States was 💯 rooted in protecting slavery and only slavery.

🙄

 

we get it. You guys want the rules changed so your team wins more. Not for a logical reason, just to skew things in your favor. 

[Hersh]

7 minutes ago, tshile said:

but they designed a system that specifically takes population density into account - the house. 
 

they clearly designed the senate to give equal representation to the states. Which is why there’s nothing about population in it. 
 

 

 

Likely cause they could not or did not image such population discrepancies. There would be no reason to at that point as they could not have imagined what would take place. It's not different in not being able to image modern weapons or modern industry. 

[Riggo-toni]

10 minutes ago, tshile said:

but they designed a system that specifically takes population density into account - the house. 
 

they clearly designed the senate to give equal representation to the states. Which is why there’s nothing about population in it. 

The problem is US law in the early 20th century limited the house to 435 seats, which negated much of the population advantage in representation. It's no longer closely proportional as it was intended, because even sparsely populated states like Wyoming still need a rep whereas large states like CA and NY don't get as many representatives per person. I think the stat is something like 30% of the population gets 70% of the vote, and this carries over to the electoral college. 

[Hersh]

9 minutes ago, tshile said:

🙄

 

we get it. You guys want the rules changed so your team wins more. Not for a logical reason, just to skew things in your favor. 

 

You may not agree but it's not an argument without logical reasoning. 

[tshile]

37 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

Likely cause they could not or did not image such population discrepancies. There would be no reason to at that point as they could not have imagined what would take place. It's not different in not being able to image modern weapons or modern industry. 

But they did design a system to factor in population. 
 

clearly it was part of their thought process. They designed two systems to specifically work differently in how they’re made up, then forced them to work together to do most things. 
 

this idea they just had no clue or forethought on this doesn’t match their actions. They made one based on population (and redistricting allows it to accommodate future changes in population), and one not, and forced them to work together. 
 

it’s just a bad argument. Sorry, it is. 

37 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

You may not agree but it's not an argument without logical reasoning. 

Yes it is. It requires you to ignore what they actually did for it to make any sense. 

37 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said:

The problem is US law in the early 20th century limited the house to 435 seats, which negated much of the population advantage in representation. It's no longer closely proportional as it was intended, because even sparsely populated states like Wyoming still need a rep whereas large states like CA and NY don't get as many representatives per person. I think the stat is something like 30% of the population gets 70% of the vote, and this carries over to the electoral college. 

I’ve been clear that changes need to be made on that front. And redistricting is a thing. They don’t need to add more seats to rebalance, although they could. 
 

That’s different than saying the system was fundamentally flawed in design. 
 

like many things - our “leaders” don’t seem to do much actual leading and fixing things, so a fixable issue goes unresolved. I’m all for fixing these issues. My pushback is specific to other arguments. 

[Larry]

10 hours ago, Hersh said:

 

but the founders likely could not have foreseen such a dramatic population disparity between states which would result in such out of balance representation. The way the guy frames it in the tweet is counterproductive. 

 

No, they absolutely could not have predicted the current US map.  

 

BUT?  Unlike Republican gerrymandering nationwide?  It wasn't done for the purpose of helping one political party.  

 

Yes, it helps Republicans.  But at least it wasn't planned.  

 

[philibusters]

21 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

Equal representation to the States was 💯 rooted in protecting slavery and only slavery.

 

I don't think that is historically accurate.  Slavery was an important issue at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, but it was not as dominant as it would become in the next 50 years. At the time Tobacco was dead as a cash crop, sugar was not suitable for most of the country as a cash crop, and the cotton gin would not be invented until 1793 so cotton was not a viable cash crop.   I don't want to downplay the importance of slavery, the south was definitely moving in the direction of slavery becoming ever more important in the social structure, but without a cash crop, the process wasn't near as complete as it would so become.

Further, there had never been a strong central gov't.  If you asked somebody in 1786 what place they were a citizen of, they would have most likely told you the state they were from.   At the time, states were the most important gov't and always had been.  Our Constitution, which allowed for the creation of a much stronger national gov't, eventually changed that equation and now if I was in France and somebody asked me where I was from, I would say the United States, not Virginia, but back then it was different.  The most analogous thing now, may be the EU.   If you met somebody from Germany and asked you where they were from, they likely say Germany and not the EU, but things change slowly and certainly its possible that in 200 years the EU starts to overtake the individual countries in terms of precedence of identity.

 

[The Evil Genius]

James Madison's defense of having electors and not a direct election for President,

 

Quote

“There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.”

 

With populations nearly identical between Nothern and Southern States, a direct election should have been no problem. But, since a sizable portion of that Southern population was in chains...well you get the problem the South had. 

Edited May 12, 2023 by The Evil Genius

[philibusters]

31 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

James Madison's defense of having electors and not a direct election for President,

 

 

With populations nearly identical between Nothern and Southern States, a direct election should have been no problem. But, since a sizable portion of that Southern population was in chains...well you get the problem the South had. 

 

Thats a good quote. One problem with the Constitutional Convention from a historian's point of view is that no notes were taking (with the idea of giving people more freedom to debate and act on their conscience).  I do concede that in light of that quote, does go against the evidence on that point.  Madison was the main drafter of the Constitution so a quote from him goes a long way.

 

I do think we should scrap the electoral college.  That said I do not see as politically feasible right now.   In the past it has been politically feasible (as recently as the 1960's or 1970s I think) and it could be politically feasible in the future.  However, right now with the electoral college clearly favoring Republicans and hurting Democrats we are in a situation where the vast majority of Republicans want to keep it and the vast majority of Democrats want to get rid of it and given that 75% of the states have to ratify any amendment, there is almost no chance the Democrats can get that many states behind it.
 

So the practical side of me thinks even if I don't like it, its here to stay.

Edited May 12, 2023 by philibusters

[PleaseBlitz]

22 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

 

LOL, California only has 1 Senator at the moment. 

[PokerPacker]

23 hours ago, Riggo-toni said:

The problem is US law in the early 20th century limited the house to 435 seats, which negated much of the population advantage in representation. It's no longer closely proportional as it was intended, because even sparsely populated states like Wyoming still need a rep whereas large states like CA and NY don't get as many representatives per person. I think the stat is something like 30% of the population gets 70% of the vote, and this carries over to the electoral college. 

Yeah, that's where my problem lies.  I'm good with the electoral college, but placing that hard limit on house seats ****ed the equation and screwed up representation in general because reps used to represent relatively few people, so there was less of a barrier between a representative and their constituents.

Edited May 12, 2023 by PokerPacker

[Fergasun]

https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/electoral-college-ratings-expect-another-highly-competitive-election/

 

16 months until the Presidential election and only voters in Nevada, Wisconsin, Georgia and Arizona will really matter.  

 

As someone in the lesser 46, shouldn't people in the other 46 states be pissed about this?  

[@DCGoldPants]

1 minute ago, Fergasun said:

https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/electoral-college-ratings-expect-another-highly-competitive-election/

 

16 months until the Presidential election and only voters in Nevada, Wisconsin, Georgia and Arizona will really matter.  

 

As someone in the lesser 46, shouldn't people in the other 46 states be pissed about this?  

 

Yep. Having your vote being worth what amounts to less per se, sucks. 

[Fergasun]

The electoral college was a compromise between people who thought Congress should choose the President and people who wanted the direct popular vote... one of the issues was no country chose their President by direct popular vote in 1787.  Additionally, the question of "could slaves vote" was another cloud over direct popular voting (imagine telling someone they got 3/5ths of a vote).

 

Stance on this should not be solely based on the party you support not winning the popular vote all the time.

 

 

[DCSaints_fan]

On 5/12/2023 at 11:00 AM, PleaseBlitz said:

 

LOL, California only has 1 Senator at the moment. 

This was actually backwards.   The Virginia Plan, as proposed by Madison and Randolph (two slaveowning Virginians) wanted proportional representation, along with a relatively strong central government, even going as far as ceding the power of the Federal legislature to directly override state law - which is nowadays handled by the court.  

 

In opposition was the New Jersey plan, which was ironically at the time, one of the less populated states and wanted to dilute the power of the more populous states, and a much weaker central government, basically a minor update to the Articles of Confederation.

 

I don't think anyone was pushing for direct elections by popular vote.  They didn't even have direct election of Senators until 1890-something - they were selected by the state legislatures.

[China]

Congress Can Ameliorate the Electoral College Imbalance on Its Own

 

It has happened five times in the history of the country that the winner of the popular vote lost in the Electoral College. Two of the times were in the past quarter century. The last four times it happened (1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016), it was a Democrat winning the popular vote but losing the election, and the fifth time (1824) the victim was a guy who would become a Democrat shortly after the election (Andrew Jackson). Many Democrats have focused on abolishing the Electoral College, especially after Donald Trump arranged for false electors in some of the states he lost. The problem is, that would require 38 states to ratify a constitutional amendment, and that will never happen. Is it hopeless then? Danielle Allen has argued in The Washington Post that while the first-choice option is politically impossible, there is a second-choice option that the Democrats could carry out next time they get the trifecta: Enlarging the House.

 

The problem with the Electoral College is that low-population red states in the Midwest and West are greatly overweighted on account of their two senators. Wyoming has a population of 580,000 and California has a population of 39 million. In a fair system, California should have 67 times the clout of Wyoming. But in the Electoral College, the ratio is 54/3 or just 18. So Wyoming has about 3.7x more power than it really should have. The same holds more or less for Alaska, Idaho, Montana, the Dakotas, West Virginia, Hawaii and more states. If the smaller states were randomly blue or red, it might not matter, but except for Hawaii, all the other states with 3 or 4 electoral votes are red states, giving the Republicans more power than they would get in a system in which states got electoral votes based strictly on their population.

 

In 1790, each of the 105 House members represented 34,000 people. In the past, the size of the House was increased over time. That stopped in 1929 when Congress permanently fixed the size of the House at 435. The population then was 120 million, so each House member represented 275,000 people. Now each of the 435 House members represents, on average, about 760,000 people. If Congress wanted each member to represent 275,000 people, as in 1929, it could increase the size of the House to 1,200 members. In over 200 countries, the ratio of population to members of the lower house is less than 275,000. In Italy, it is 97,000. In Spain, it is 79,000. In France, it is 72,000. In the U.K. it is 45,000.

 

This expansion would also go far toward fixing the Electoral College problem. In a 1,200-seat House, California would have 142 House seats and 144 electoral votes, Wyoming would have 2 House seats and 4 electoral votes, and the ratio would be about 36. While not 67, it is more than 18, and would reduce the power of the small states. And the simple thing here is that all it takes to do this is for Congress to pass a new law. No constitutional amendment is needed.

 

A second problem with the U.S. electoral system is gerrymandering. If done right, the expansion could also address that. To make the math simpler, let's assume the House triples in size, to 1,305 members. But rather than make 1,305 smaller, gerrymandered districts, the number of districts is kept at 435 (or even made smaller). Each district would elect three members by proportional representation by party or ranked-choice voting. In that way, if a red district had one-third Democrats, they could elect one of the three members. It would be much harder for a partisan legislature to draw lines to grab nearly all the seats. Right now, if a Republican legislature draws a map with large numbers of 55% R, 45% D districts, the Republicans win all those seats. In a three-member district, each party would be assured of one seat and the other one would be competitive. The devil is in the details, but introducing multimember districts that were not winner-take-all, as is now the case, would go a long way to making sure the minority party in each district had a decent shot at some representation. A 1,200-member House and 240 five-member districts with some sort of proportional representation would make gerrymandering nearly impossible. The limit here is to have all House members run statewide and then allocate seats to the parties in proportion to the votes.

 

Click on the link for the rest

[Fergasun]

Tripling the House (smaller districts) and popular vote for President are my top two reforms.  I also think trippling the Senate and giving each state a vote for Senator each election is valid.  What's the upside? 

 

Have fun constantly bribing 1455 people corporations.  

[Renegade7]

Was literally coming to comment about that article after reading it elsewhere...I'd like to at least start with ending the cap in the House...

 

The power the smaller states have in the Senate is bad enough that giving them such higher odds of controlling the House basically hands them Congress on a silver platter.

 

That's not what the founders wanted, they tried hard for balance so the coasts wouldn't jus dominate the entire middle of the country.

[Fergasun]

Yes, yes, exactly, exactly! 

 

The founders didn't want the eastern and western boundaries of the country to dominate the middle... 

 

Like how dare the East coast people of Virginia have to follow the tyranical ways of the most far western state of... Virginia!  And then they lord it over the people living in middle Virginia. 

 

Not aiming anything at you... just the idea of "the founders" reacting to the current United States territory. 

[Renegade7]

@Fergasun that's funny, you caught me : )

 

As hard finding compromises was before ratifying the Constitution, three things stood out to me at least about forming Congress:

 

1. Because the House was always meant to have direct elections by the people, it needed a check against its potential worst intentions. Aka the Senate, which was smaller and at the time NOT directly elected by regular population.

 

2. There already were smaller states compared to big states, and smaller states knew representation by population alone wasn't good enough and neither was the 3/5ths compromise, another justification for a Senate

 

3. (where that comment came from and jus my opinion) Manifest Destiny was a term rarely seen until at least early 19th century, most Founders were dead by then, but during forming of the Constituion the foresight for future states likely being small at their beginning and the east coast already having large population centers was a reasonable early prediction and concern they did talk about.  Kentucky became a state like 4 years after Virginia did.

 

I don't see evidence the constitutional convention actively discussing the impact on their ideas in context to current map of CONTUS, if for any reason because of so many of the problems attributed to it.  I've said this before and will say it again, some things that made sense splitting between 13 states don't make sense splitting between 50. 

 

It was also up to future generations to adapt to new realities and add amendments when deemed necessary, the west coast also having large population centers that could overwhelm smaller landlocked interior states was never discussed from what i can tell but seems like the Constitution they ratified based somewhat on what they were already concerned about on the east coast was sitting their waiting for anyway.

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Ball Security]

10 hours ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

50% of Republicans? That’s wild to me.

[PleaseBlitz]

1 hour ago, Ball Security said:

50% of Republicans? That’s wild to me.

 

A majority of Republicans think Trump won the popular vote in 2020.