Should the United States scrap the electoral college?

[Renegade7]

3 hours ago, tshile said:

Until congress amends the constitution?

 😂 

 

Sure. 

They can do that after they figure out how to actually fund the government 😂 

 

Can't have it both ways... : )

 

Can't laugh this off because folks are making "assumptions" about the future of states then also laugh this off concerning whether congress will ever get their **** together.

 

I don't KNOW what's going to happen because I'm not Negrodamus...I jus KNOW I'm fine with this in the meantime...

 

[bearrock]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

gotcha. So it only works when it’s in their favor.  😂 

 

Or only when the compact actually accomplishes what it is intended to do (i.e. - national popular vote winner wins the election).  I don't really care who supports it for whatever reason nor do I care about what was needed to bring people to the table 250 years ago (though tbf, the compact doesn't change the bargain.  States were always free to decide how they awarded electors).  I do know that I would rather have the candidates try to turn out the votes and engage across the whole swath of the country rather than campaigning at pretty much the same select few states every election cycle.

12 minutes ago, tshile said:

you all just don’t like it or wo t accept it and keep saying the EC makes individual votes worthless or outsized values and ignore the pitfalls of popular vote. 

 

I don't understand this part.  What are the pitfalls of a popular vote?  

[tshile]

15 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

I don't understand this part.  What are the pitfalls of a popular vote?  

Just to quickly add to my other comment: at least they guarded against what I was saying. Which makes it less stupid. Unfortunate I don’t get to see what I thought would be hilarious - but the likelihood was tiny anyways (I assume, based on recent trends)

 

but to your question - it’s been explained already in this thread and I’m not interested in revisiting it all over again but I also don’t want to be disrespectful. So in short - the country in its entirety his not well represented by the national popular vote, popular vote would likely reduce the presidency to major cities and their suburbs deciding every election. The wants, needs, and views of those people do not reflect everyone else. Furthermore the president is not a king - it is but one of 3 branches of government, and the legislative already works on popular vote. You’d take 1 branch of 3 that are selected in different ways to form representation, and make it like one of the others. I think there’s value in the idea behind the EC - it clearly gives weight to things in a different way than how the legislature is formed, and I think that was the idea. 
 

that said - the mechanism for adjusting to demographic changes (the census) seems inadequate. I’m all for making the EC system better and fixing it and open to all ideas. Reducing it to simply popular vote seems to miss the point entirely - although it seems clear (to me) some simply want it because the last 30 years suggest their party would win every time. 
 

If you’re willing to consider that there are other ways to represent people, you can see how there’s value in the EC (even if you think the EC needs adjusting, or maybe you just think there’s an alternative system that would be better.) 

 

it’s a large country. The people on the coasts want and need very different things than the people in the middle. We have a house a senate and the office of the president, and no one group has total control. I like that we have a system like this. I like that a party can win the presidency - yet not just get everything they want. I like that we have senators and members of the house that represent people in different ways, and a presidency that represents states in another. I think it’s good states have influence on the presidency, when they would have almost none if we did a national popular vote. I don’t think it would be good if the presidency was reduced to simply representing coastal cities and their suburbs. 
 

But again - I don’t think it’s perfect and I certainly think it could/should be adjusted to be better. I don’t think that CA having so many people, means they should be able exercise heavy influence on an office thats supposed to represent 50 states DC and territories. 

[bearrock]

7 minutes ago, tshile said:

Just to quickly add to my other comment: at least they guarded against what I was saying. Which makes it less stupid. Unfortunate I don’t get to see what I thought would be hilarious - but the likelihood was tiny anyways (I assume, based on recent trends)

 

but to your question - it’s been explained already in this thread and I’m not interested in revisiting it all over again but I also don’t want to be disrespectful. So in short - the country in its entirety his not well represented by the national popular vote, popular vote would likely reduce the presidency to major cities and their suburbs deciding every election. The wants, needs, and views of those people do not reflect everyone else. Furthermore the president is not a king - it is but one of 3 branches of government, and the legislative already works on popular vote. You’d take 1 branch of 3 that are selected in different ways to form representation, and make it like one of the others. I think there’s value in the idea behind the EC - it clearly gives weight to things in a different way than how the legislature is formed, and I think that was the idea. 
 

that said - the mechanism for adjusting to demographic changes (the census) seems inadequate. I’m all for making the EC system better and fixing it and open to all ideas. Reducing it to simply popular vote seems to miss the point entirely - although it seems clear (to me) some simply want it because the last 30 years suggest their party would win every time. 
 

If you’re willing to consider that there are other ways to represent people, you can see how there’s value in the EC (even if you think the EC needs adjusting, or maybe you just think there’s an alternative system that would be better.) 

 

it’s a large country. The people on the coasts want and need very different things than the people in the middle. We have a house a senate and the office of the president, and no one group has total control. I like that we have a system like this. I like that a party can win the presidency - yet not just get everything they want. I like that we have senators and members of the house that represent people in different ways, and a presidency that represents states in another. I think it’s good states have influence on the presidency, when they would have almost none if we did a national popular vote. I don’t think it would be good if the presidency was reduced to simply representing coastal cities and their suburbs. 
 

But again - I don’t think it’s perfect and I certainly think it could/should be adjusted to be better. I don’t think that CA having so many people, means they should be able exercise heavy influence on an office thats supposed to represent 50 states DC and territories. 

 

Okay, I appreciate you revisiting topics you covered earlier in the thread and my bad for not delving more into the previous posts before asking.  👍

 

I don't want to rehash what I assume were probably discussed in detail before so I'd just summarize my position as certainly open to something along the lines of what you suggest (tweaking the EC system to improve on things it does well and fix things it does not).  I was commenting more generally on the EC as is vs. a straightforward popular vote system (and if a choice between those two, I prefer the popular vote).  But if people came up with a better system, certainly yeah, I would not be set on a popular vote system.  At the end of the day, I want a system that encourages presidential candidates to try to reach out and engage with more parts of the country than they are doing now.

[Renegade7]

@tshile

 

If it was other way around and we had a bunch of GOP candidates who lost the Presidential election despite winning popular vote you dont think demonizing and coming after the Electoral College wouldnt be a high priority for them?

 

It's disingenuous to protray this as strictly about one party feeling screwed...Trump got elected instead of our first female president despite losing by 3 million votes. 

 

Stepping back and thinking about the damage from that election and what could've been instead, or Gore winning instead of Bush where we'd be with respect to climate change.  The dropping faith in our democracy is a serious problem and it's happening in real time.

 

This idea the GOP is as concerned about democracy for their constitutes as you are and that's why they don't support NPVIC or want to address the electoral college directly is a joke, their MO is trying to steal elections instead of win them now.

 

You again are at odds with what are some fair takes from a conservative standpoint and what the "conservative party" is actually thinking and doing.  It should be a major factor in what process is taken to address this EC / Popular vote matter, this isn't happening in the vacuum of an Internet Message Board.

Edited April 6 by Renegade7

[tshile]

@bearrock  all good I just don’t have it in me to go through the same routine right now that was already gone through. The vast majority of posters in this thread think the EC is about empowering pro slavery states and seem to think national popular vote is the only way to represent the country for the office of the presidency. Arguing seems pointless, but I didn’t want to be disrespectful towards you. So I tried to be brief. I don’t expect you or anyone else to reread the whole thread and you were politely asking a simple question. 
 

I do think strictly adhering to decisions made hundreds of years ago is silly. im all for considering different options to things in an attempt to recognize the country has changed and the world has changed - obviously mechanisms were provided to reflect that was always a consideration. 
 

my preference would be to try to appreciate the difference ways you can represent people, ideas, and states - and keep that while fixing some of the issues with it that have developed over time. I think national popular vote is a short cut, has pit falls, and happens to almost solely benefit the part the people pushing the idea prefer to win.
🤷‍♂️ 

[tshile]

23 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

@tshile

 

If it was other way around and we had a bunch of GOP candidates who lost the Presidential election despite winning popular vote you dont think demonizing and coming after the Electoral College wouldnt be a high priority for them?

 

It's disingenuous to protray this as strictly about one party feeling screwed...Trump got elected instead of our first female president despite losing by 3 million votes. 

 

Stepping back and thinking about the damage from that election and what could've been instead, or Gore winning instead of Bush where we'd be with respect to climate change.  The dropping faith in our democracy is a serious problem and it's happening in real time.

 

This idea the GOP is as concerned about democracy for their constitutes as you are and that's why they don't support NPVIC or want to address the electoral college directly is a joke, their MO is trying to steal elections instead of win them now.

 

You again are at odds with what are some fair takes from a conservative standpoint and what the "conservative party" is actually thinking and doing.  It should be a major factor in what process is taken to address this EC / Popular vote matter, this isn't happening in the vacuum of an Internet Message Board.

so your point is that while I pointed out it seems to be people wanting to change the rules so they can win easier and more often, that if the roles were reversed the other side would do the same?

 

great. I’m glad you agree this isn’t about what’s right or wrong, or what is the best system, but is simply about people trying to change the rules so their preferred outcome occurred more often or with more ease. 
 

edit: I’m half serious half having fun with you. I’m not trying to be disrespectful to you either. I feel like through this debate I’ve at least tried to concede your side has some legitimate gripes, while providing what I think is a better way of looking at it and pointing out my gripes with your proposed solution. I do not feel like your side has bothered doing the same. Silly jabs at people like you that we go back and forth on many topics aside - I don’t recall any of you seriously considering that there are different ways to respect the country or exploring the idea. It seems to be national popular vote is better and thats all there is to the argument. With the occasional poster doing their “it’s all about racism” shtick. 

Edited April 6 by tshile

[Renegade7]

3 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

great. I’m glad you agree this isn’t about what’s right or wrong, or what is the best system, but is simply about people trying to change the rules so their preferred outcome occurred more often or with more ease. 

 

If the preferred outcome is survival of our democracy in the face of something a million times more anti-democratic then any solution proposed in this thread...guilty as charged.

 

This isn't about which party wins or "my party", one isn't a political party anymore and is a direct threat to the survival of our country.  We can't get any of the proposals that make more since then NPVIC, like changing House back to being appripriately proportional to population or trippled to kill gerrymandering, when this fascist movement is holding as much power as it has.

 

Wish we could skip steps with respect to appropriately adjusting the constitution to address your and mine concerns on EC /  Popular Vote. Are we gonna ignore the elephant in the room, though?

 

The GOP isn't a political party anymore, that's why to me this isn't a "what's best for party I like the most" right now.  As of right now, the next GOP POTUS could be the last POTUS for a while, that's a real threat, not hyperbole.

[88Comrade2000]

Right now the minority is imposing their views on the majority.

 

The way the government is set up, gives the minority the power to block what a majority wants.

 

 

As for the EC, nothing will happen to it.  Unless some of the southern states turn solid blue; doubt the gop does anything.

 

 

The popular vote seems to be an attempt to rectify things but the flaw seems to be ignoring the will of the voters of that state. If that state is giving its electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote, then it could be ignoring the will of the voters of that state.  The popular vote winner is candidate X but the voters of that state voted for candidate Y.  I think this solution just creates another problem.

 

 

They should try the Nebraska/ Maine approach.  Allocate the EVs for each congressional district to whoever wins that district. So, you can have EVs in deep red or blue states going to the other party. Then EVs that represent the Senate, can go to whoever wins the state overall.  It’s a fairer way of using the EC system. I don’t know who this benefits but it will mean more areas will be in play.

[Renegade7]

"Ignoring the will of the state" feels so much a reminante of NPVIC not getting rid of electoral college.

 

If it's a true national popular vote, what the majority in an individual state feels doesn't matter because it's not a state by state election anymore its an actually national election where whoever has the most votes overall in the grand total of the entire country wins.

 

This is in context no matter how close any of these state elections are, most are winner take all.  So we're already seeing where nearly half a state is being ignored because of what 51% of their state voted.

 

And still no one has proposed a state that would be hurt the most by a plan that's not meant to be signed by all 50 states. 

[Skins24]

1 hour ago, The Sisko said:

Others have tried, but I’m going to take a stab at it. The irony of your position is that you’re arguing against what you’re arguing for.

Imagine that in statewide elections, say for senate, that each district has electoral votes as is the case nationally. Your district votes heavily in favor of candidate A, who doesn’t receive the majority of votes statewide. Is this district’s vote nullified because the hypothetical electors are required to vote in candidate B? Is it no longer a democracy? In other words, whichever side loses will be in the same position you describe, just without the electoral vote process based on winner take all.

I understand the concept of the sovereignty of the states, and why it exists. However, it creates artificial boundaries that are magnifying the power of some votes to the detriment of others. This solution is actually ingenious in that it uses one of the root causes of the problem to solve the problem. 

The thing is, I'm not arguing for anything.

Your smaller scale example doesn't work as that's not how any of the states vote. The folks in District A don't care who's in District B, because they're not going to represent them. He's not even on the ballot so he can't get more votes statewide.

 

More in response to Packer:

 

7 hours ago, PokerPacker said:

Here's the deal: I'm not exactly a supporter of popular vote wins the election.  I think my history in this thread through the years backs that up; go back to my post on the first page, and my post on the previous page.  I believe the ideal solution involves increasing the number of representatives so they represent closer to the number of people they used to before the house was arbitrarily capped, and to end gerrymandering.  I also believe states should not be giving all of their votes to whomever won the state, because the state is effectively steamrolling 45% of its people, but if you don't bundle all of your votes together as one, you limit the value courting your state, so it is in the state's best interest to do so.  The problem is that there doesn't seem to be much chance for these to be implemented.  The folks in power are the folks who benefit from the current arrangement, and are the folks who have the authority to change it.

The popular-vote pact, however, does seem a possible goal to reach.  It doesn't require an act of congress to vote against congress-critters' best interests.  It just requires enough states to buy in to achieve the 270 vote threshold.  Not an easy task, but does seem possible.  I'm not down with the argument that this ignores the will of the voters, considering the will of the voters of these states is that the president be elected by popular vote.  And in this case it gives value to all of their voters.  And all voters in the country.  No more is a Democrat in Texas voting in vain, or a Republican in California.  It does diminish the pull of the less populous states, but as the current electoral college stands, their voters get a ludicrously outsized voice allowing for the tyranny of the minority.  If I had to pick between two imperfect systems, I'd rather the one where majority rules than where minority rules.  If those small states don't like it, their Congress-critters can then push for real meaningful reform; like my suggestion of growing the House like in the days of yore.  It still grants the senate bump, but makes it a much smaller, more reasonable bump.

And I for the most part agree with your suggestions of a possible solution! The only problem is that, unfortunately, it would never work. Imagine, in this political climate, trying to pass a bill with 1200 Representatives 😂

It'd be chaotic

 

The problem with the popular vote pact is that it does not solve the problems of why we don't vote popular vote in the first place.

The majority of the people in those states prefer the president be elected by popular vote? Great. Have those states petition the changes to the constitution. Don't just decide for everyone this is how we'll do things now.

If they get to 270, what happens to all the states that don't want this? Just, tough luck? It'll be the smaller and least populous states, and we circle around to why we're set up the way we are in the first place...

 

With the EC, if more states went the way of Maine and Nebraska, that'd be great. This pact though, not only keeps the EC, it changes the sole purpose of electors, which is to represent your state.

You say tyranny of the majority is better than the tyranny of the minority (I know I'm exaggerating a bit) but with our current set up, the majority lost their voice a few times. With the majority however, the minority would lose their voice all the time. 

 

[PeterMP]

34 minutes ago, Skins24 said:

And I for the most part agree with your suggestions of a possible solution! The only problem is that, unfortunately, it would never work. Imagine, in this political climate, trying to pass a bill with 1200 Representatives 😂

It'd be chaotic

 

I don't know why it would be any more chaoitc.

 

But the bigger thing is that more congressional districts likely changes political climate.  Actually knowing more of your constituents and your constituents actually knowing you would become more feasible and voting would be based more on those personal interactions/knowledge and less on the platform of the national party or what people see in tv commercials.

Edited April 6 by PeterMP

[tshile]

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

If the preferred outcome is survival of our democracy in the face of something a million times more anti-democratic then any solution proposed in this thread...guilty as charged.

 

I think there’s enough posts on this board between the two of us to suggest we want the same thing and share the same fears. We see different ways of getting there, and see different problems with each others opinions on it. But I think we want the same thing - a functioning government that does its best to do the best for the people, as a whole and within the constraints of reality. 
 

Few quick points:

- I think it’s a logical flaw to take the last 8 years and use it as a reason to totally revamp a system in place for hundreds of years. 
 

- dems/liberals/progressives have a pretty solid history of being shortsighted in changing rules only to later have those changes used by republicans to do 10x the damage whatever benefit was originally sought 

 

- I’m not convinced the dems are some altruistic party, and hence I’m not convinced adjusting the system such that they win hands down with the presidency every time for the foreseeable future is a good idea. I don’t think the dems are immune to some version of what has happened to the republicans. In some ways you can see how it’s already happened. People love to generalize and use others actions to excuse their own. There’s legitimately many posters here that think that by virtue of identifying as a republican they are evil - they’ve literally said as much. 
 

- generally I think short cuts are a bad idea. 

Edited April 6 by tshile

[The Evil Genius]

2 hours ago, tshile said:

gotcha. So it only works when it’s in their favor.  😂 

This is in the explanation for why popular vote is stupid. 
 

you all just don’t like it or wo t accept it and keep saying the EC makes individual votes worthless or outsized values and ignore the pitfalls of popular vote. 
 

just like you ignore that popular vote gets you control in other ways at the top, and that we have a system that’s counter balanced. 
 

it really just comes down to dems not liking that the EC levels the playing field on the president, and doesn’t just hand it over to the major cities to decide every year. 

 

How does EC level the playing field other than giving non populous states an EC per vote advantage over the larger populous states?

 

[Captain Wiggles]

The electoral college is so amazing that's why it's used to elect governors, Senators, representatives, mayor's, city council folks, American idols, Grand Poobahs, and.... oh wait it's only used for the presidential election. 🤪

[Fergasun]

I am like tshile in that the arguments in this thread have gone back and forth and there's no argument that will persuade the pro-EC that popular vote is better (whatever underlying reason).  

 

Let me throw this argument out there:

The President is the only Federal candidate on every single citizen's ballot.  It's inherently un-democratic to weigh all of our ballots unequally due to whether the state you live in is a "battleground" state.  

 

I guarantee if (and when, it will be decades, but it's coming) we go through electoral cycles with national popular vote, the only rationale for going back to the electoral college is only MY PARTY DIDN'T WIN. 

 

Make no mistake.  Under the current system only 6 states matter.  Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan.  That's it.  It's pathetic that the 40+ other states and citizens aren't up in arms over this.

[TheGreatBuzz]

Reading this thread reminds me why I don't bother participating in this conversation much. @tshile seems to be representing my general position pretty well himself. I just want to add one point; in the spirit of non-racist "states rights", i support states allocating their votes how they see fit. If the people don't like it,  they need to affect that change. 

[The Evil Genius]

As it stands now, a voter in Wyoming has 3.5x the EC voting power as I do in California (or as most of you do, who live in Virginia).

 

So much for a representative democracy. 

Edited April 6 by The Evil Genius

[Fergasun]

One more point. Prior to 2000, everyone agreed that a non-popular vote President would be a major democracy issue and a Constitutional crisis.  It was recognized as a flaw in our system.  But, "that hasn't happened for 150 years" (or however long).  It's now happened twice in 20 years.  

 

We nearly went popular vote with Nixon.  House approved the amendment, but the Senate blocked it.   Not sure why Obama and Biden and the Dems haven't raised this back up post 2000 and post 2016.  Nixon was concerned with a third party.  A third party is likely to screw Biden this year (RFK). 

[The Evil Genius]

Truly the only argument being made here to keep it is that it's the only avenue for GOP Presidents to get elected. 

 

As if its my problem that the party that abandoned you has made an emphasis to also abandon the last 2 generations. 

Edited April 6 by The Evil Genius

[Skins24]

4 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

As it stands now, a voter in Wyoming has 3.5x the EC voting power as I do in California (or as most of you do, who live in Virginia).

 

So much for a representative democracy. 

Is the goal to have Wyoming with 0 EC voting power?

 

I don't care, because I don't live in Wyoming 🙂

But that is what the pact would essentially do. It would do that more often then not. Are we ok with that? Are Wyomingians(?) Ok with that?

[The Evil Genius]

5 minutes ago, Skins24 said:

Is the goal to have Wyoming with 0 EC voting power?

 

I don't care, because I don't live in Wyoming 🙂

But that is what the pact would essentially do. It would do that more often then not. Are we ok with that? Are Wyomingians(?) Ok with that?

 

My goal is for every voter in the US to have exactly the same voting power. Which the popular vote does.

 

I mean..why shouldn't my vote in California offset tshiles Trump vote in Florida? 😁

 

That said, should one get rid of the 100 Senate EC added votes, we would have something closer to that as well. Small states would still be overrepresented, but not at the factor they are now. 

 

Edited April 6 by The Evil Genius

[Skins24]

12 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

My goal is for every voter in the US to have exactly the same voting power. Which the popular vote does.

It would. If we had 300 million less people, equally spread out. But we don't. The problem of the major cities deciding every election would still play out.

 

I know it's not really the same, but what if I wanted to vote my displeasure on an issue or protest vote. With the current set up (as flawed as it is and I am 100% for changes), at least there would be the potential for my voice to be heard. With a popular vote, my voice drops to zero.

Edited April 6 by Skins24

[PokerPacker]

1 hour ago, Skins24 said:

You say tyranny of the majority is better than the tyranny of the minority (I know I'm exaggerating a bit) but with our current set up, the majority lost their voice a few times. With the majority however, the minority would lose their voice all the time.

Don't feel like responding to the rest of the post (sorry; lazy), but just wanted to touch on this here.  The threat of losing their outsized voice makes for an awful strong motivator to bring said minority to the table to negotiate for real reforms.  Faced with the prospect of a popular vote, they might be willing to sit down and discuss alternative solutions that they are currently disinclined to.

[Skins24]

Monarchies worked for thousands of years. We should all just go back to that 🤔