Should the United States scrap the electoral college?

[Cooked Crack]

 

[tshile]

On 10/28/2020 at 11:30 AM, Fergasun said:

According to Google, America is the only "Presidential Democracy" in which the country can elect a President who does not win the popular vote. 

Um. I’m not sure if this is carefully worded in a way or what but....

 

according to pew research center, in 65 of the worlds 125 “democracies”, the president (or equivalent office) is elected directly by the voters. 

everyone else has a different system. Some are similar to ours some are not. 
 

[Fergasun]

@tshile

Yes, but what I read was that only in America can the one who gets the most popular votes get elected.  

[tshile]

So.... Colorado now has it where, for example, if 60% of the state voted for candidate A but candidate B won the national popular vote, then CO’s EC votes go to candidate B?

 

id be pissed. 

[tshile]

9 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

@tshile

Yes, but what I read was that only in America can the one who gets the most popular votes get elected.  

Yeah.... but like I said. That’s some pretty specific wording. 
 

for example if one of those countries is a democracy that doesn’t even have a popular vote for President, and has some body that picks it (and they’re voted on by the people), then they wouldn’t count because they’re not a country where the president can be chosen “and lose the popular vote” cause there isn’t a popular vote...

 

so it’s basically super misleading. Without going through all 60 of the other countries, I can’t tell. 
 

but I think what pew research center says, which is that only 65 of the 125 “democracies” do  have their President chosen by popular vote, is likely a better way to describe it without digging through it all. 
 

and I think it clearly demonstrates that the idea that “The USA is the only democracy that a president can lose the popular vote” is, at best, super misleading. 
 

and likely done on purpose because they know people won’t actually look it up. 

Edited November 19, 2020 by tshile

[tshile]

Here's one example:

Pakistan

Listed as Democracy, but:
"president indirectly elected by the Electoral College consisting of members of the Senate, National Assembly, and provincial assemblies for a 5-year term (limited to 2 consecutive terms); election last held on 4 September 2018 (next to be held in 2023); prime minister elected by the National Assembly on 17 August 2018 "

Source

 

So... right, their president and prime minister cannot lose the popular vote but still win the election, because.... there is no popular vote.

 

[tshile]

UK and Canada also don't have Prime Ministers that can lose the popular vote. Because they don't have one.

 

And also we don't really have a "popular vote" either. We have numbers from the states that we add together and call the "popular vote" but it's not an official thing. we have an EC.

 

The idea that we're the only democracy that the president can lose the popular vote is just super disingenuous at best. it's not even close in terms of accuracy in the context with which it is presented. not even close.

[The Evil Genius]

Easiest fix to the EC is to remove 2 ECVs for each state. 

[bearrock]

3 minutes ago, tshile said:

UK and Canada also don't have Prime Ministers that can lose the popular vote. Because they don't have one.

 

And also we don't really have a "popular vote" either. We have numbers from the states that we add together and call the "popular vote" but it's not an official thing. we have an EC.

 

The idea that we're the only democracy that the president can lose the popular vote is just super disingenuous at best. it's not even close in terms of accuracy in the context with which it is presented. not even close.

 

Parliamentary systems are apples to our orange, so they are not really a good comparison.  In countries that hold a national election for the chief executive, is there another country who's outcome is not determined by who gets the most aggregate votes across the entire country?

[tshile]

4 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

Parliamentary systems are apples to our orange, so they are not really a good comparison.  In countries that hold a national election for the chief executive, is there another country who's outcome is not determined by who gets the most aggregate votes across the entire country?

But that’s not what they said. They said of “democracies”. 
 

and we don’t have a “national vote for President” we have a electoral college. 
 

you can take the totals from the states and add them together. But it’s not an official thing we have that we’re going against. 
 

im not sayin you can’t have a problem with it. I’m just saying the original statement is wrong. It’s not even close to what it’s attempting to convey. 

And other countries have use an EC too. 
 

they just don’t also have a popular vote thing to throw against it. 
 

we are not the only democracy that uses an EC

 

we are not the only democracy where the president is not chosen by a national popular vote. 

Edited November 19, 2020 by tshile

[Cooked Crack]

38 minutes ago, tshile said:

So.... Colorado now has it where, for example, if 60% of the state voted for candidate A but candidate B won the national popular vote, then CO’s EC votes go to candidate B?

 

id be pissed. 

Um. Good?

 

I don't care if the President "wins" my state. He's running for a governor or any state office.

[PleaseBlitz]

38 minutes ago, tshile said:

So.... Colorado now has it where, for example, if 60% of the state voted for candidate A but candidate B won the national popular vote, then CO’s EC votes go to candidate B?

 

id be pissed. 

 

15 states and DC have signed onto this, but it only goes into effect if states totaling 270 EC votes sign on.  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#Mechanism

 

[tshile]

20 minutes ago, bearrock said:

In countries that hold a national election for the chief executive

we aren't a country that holds a national election for chief executive

 

our states all hold elections on the same day. EC is decided that way. they are state elections. the rules are decided by the states. disputes are handled by the states. they are state elections.

 

we can then add those numbers to get a popular vote, but otherwise the popular vote is meaningless and not used anywhere.

 

if you're gonna insist we not compare apples to oranges, then please stop comparing apples to oranges yourself

 

12 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

Um. Good?

 

I don't care if the President "wins" my state. He's running for a governor or any state office.

 

So 60% of CO could vote for, say Biden, but if Trump won the total national vote CO's EC's would go to Trump.

 

I'm trying to think of a way where this makes anything better, specifically for the people of CO.

 

If their popular vote aligns with the national vote, nothing changes.

 

The only way something changes is if CO's popular vote conflicts. In which case CO's EC votes for a person that lost CO's popular vote.

 

Seems like a stupid idea.

Edited November 19, 2020 by tshile

[tshile]

13 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

15 states and DC have signed onto this, but it only goes into effect if states totaling 270 EC votes sign on.  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#Mechanism

 

OK... still trying to figure out how this makes anything better.

 

If there are enough states that total to 270 votes, and Trump wins the national popular vote, then *all* of those EC's would go to trump. Even if those states chose Biden in terms of their own popular vote.

 

It seems like it's not doing anything different, except in a corner case where the majority of the people in those states might have their EC's select the other guy.

 

There's lots of EC changes i'm for. I cannot figure this out. I must be missing something...

[PleaseBlitz]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

OK... still trying to figure out how this makes anything better.

 

If there are enough states that total to 270 votes, and Trump wins the national popular vote, then *all* of those EC's would go to trump. Even if those states chose Biden in terms of their own popular vote.

 

It seems like it's not doing anything different, except in a corner case where the majority of the people in those states might have their EC's select the other guy.

 

There's lots of EC changes i'm for. I cannot figure this out. I must be missing something...

 

It would ensure that whoever wins the national popular vote wins the Presidency.  As such, it would have changed the outcome in 2016 and 2000.  That's pretty much it.  

[bearrock]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

According to Google, America is the only "Presidential Democracy" in which the country can elect a President who does not win the popular vote. 

 

I assume you're talking about this quote right? (originally from Cooked Crack's post) 

 

I guess the accuracy of the statement depends on the definition of "Presidential Democracy" (but certainly wouldn't apply to all democracies).

 

(Edit: instead of "As for") Setting aside whether the US system is a national election or 50 state elections held on a same day, I guess the question goes back to this.  Regardless of direct or indirect election, is there another presidential democracy where the winner of the election could be different from the winner of the most votes in the country?

 

 

8 minutes ago, tshile said:

OK... still trying to figure out how this makes anything better.

 

If there are enough states that total to 270 votes, and Trump wins the national popular vote, then *all* of those EC's would go to trump. Even if those states chose Biden in terms of their own popular vote.

 

It seems like it's not doing anything different, except in a corner case where the majority of the people in those states might have their EC's select the other guy.

 

There's lots of EC changes i'm for. I cannot figure this out. I must be missing something...

 

It's a way to implement the popular vote system without a constitutional amendment

Edited November 19, 2020 by bearrock

[Cooked Crack]

9 minutes ago, tshile said:

So 60% of CO could vote for, say Biden, but if Trump won the total national vote CO's EC's would go to Trump.

 

I'm trying to think of a way where this makes anything better, specifically for the people of CO.

 

If their popular vote aligns with the national vote, nothing changes.

 

The only way something changes is if CO's popular vote conflicts. In which case CO's EC votes for a person that lost CO's popular vote.

 

Seems like a stupid idea.

Yep. Have no problem with that. Seems like the way it should be. Will actually encourage more folks to vote if their vote actually matters regardless of their states political leanings.

 

I think the EC is a stupid system and the longer we go without an actual popular vote we are opening ourselves up to further gaming of the system. 

[tshile]

16 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

It would ensure that whoever wins the national popular vote wins the Presidency.  As such, it would have changed the outcome in 2016 and 2000.  That's pretty much it.  

In which case each individual state is basically saying:

if our vote aligns with the national numbers nothing changes

if it doesn’t, we throw our EC votes against our own residents vote. And this is being pushed by the people who are tired of the EC going against “the will of the people”? 
 

i get it if everyone was on board. But they’re not. When these states align with the national numbers, but the other states push the EC to the other candidate, then these states don’t get what they want. 
 

but if these states don’t align, their own EC votes have to change against their state popular vote, and they get what they want (in terms of ensuring the EC matches national popular vote) but it comes at the expense of their EC votes not matching what their state residents want. 
 

All it’s going to do is turn these states EC electors against them in some situations, and in some others create landslide wins that otherwise would just be a win (and also doesn’t actually matter in the context of anything)

 

15 minutes ago, bearrock said:

is there another presidential democracy where the winner of the election could be different from the winner of the most votes in the country?

Theres 59 other countries you’ll have to go look into to get that answer

 

the original statement is misleading. It’s not hard to understand. 
 

You want to get super nit picky on details but just use your hands to wave away the detail that we don’t actually have a national vote for the president. 
 

you’re bending yourself into a pretzel to defend a statement that is just completely disingenuous. I don’t get it. 

Edited November 19, 2020 by tshile

[PleaseBlitz]

5 minutes ago, tshile said:

In which case each individual state is basically saying:

if our vote aligns with the national numbers nothing changes

if it doesn’t, we throw our EC votes against our own residents vote. And this is being pushed by the people who are tired of the EC going against “the will of the people”? 

 

States legislatures have decided that the EC system is bull****, because it is.  National office should be decided by a national vote, not 51 separate contests.  Additionally, for all or most of the states that have joined it, their voters are already largely ignored (a major failing of the EC system), so this is a way to make their voters actually matter.  

Edited November 19, 2020 by PleaseBlitz

[tshile]

Just now, PleaseBlitz said:

 

States legislatures have decided that the EC system is bull****, because it is.  National office should be decided by a national vote, not 50 separate contests.  Additionally, for all or most of the states that have joined it, their voters are already largely ignored (a major failing of the EC system), so this is a way to make their voters actually matter.  

Dude it has nothing to do with whether you support the EC or want it gone. 
 

they’ve put themselves in a position we’re likely nothing will change, there’s a small chance it will have the impact they want, and there’s a small chance (but I would say larger chance than the other) that I’ll have the exact opposite impact they want. 
 

im open to the idea I’m missing something. But as it currently stands this seems like a really dumb idea that, in the event it changes something, it seems to me most likely to nullify *their own votes* and no one else’s. 
 

you hate the EC and want it gone. I get it. This, as currently constructed, doesn’t accomplish that at all. 

[PleaseBlitz]

3 minutes ago, tshile said:

Dude it has nothing to do with whether you support the EC or want it gone. 
 

they’ve put themselves in a position we’re likely nothing will change, there’s a small chance it will have the impact they want, and there’s a small chance (but I would say larger chance than the other) that I’ll have the exact opposite impact they want. 
 

im open to the idea I’m missing something. But as it currently stands this seems like a really dumb idea that, in the event it changes something, it seems to me most likely to nullify *their own votes* and no one else’s. 
 

you hate the EC and want it gone. I get it. This, as currently constructed, doesn’t accomplish that at all. 

 

 Sigh. You just learned about this thing like a few minutes ago, don't start with me about what it does or how it would actually work.

Edited November 19, 2020 by PleaseBlitz

[Spaceman Spiff]

1 minute ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

 Sigh. You just learned about this thing like a few minutes ago, don't start with me about how it would actually work.

 

Nobody ****s with a lawyer.

 

Here's what I'm wondering:  If the EOC had historically favored Democrats and Democrats had won elections with it by NOT winning the popular vote like the GOP did in 2000 and 2016, are we having this conversation?

 

[tshile]

1 minute ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

 Sigh. You just learned about this thing like a few minutes ago, don't start with me about how it would actually work.

then what is it im missing?

 

so long as not everyone’s on board how is what I described not accurate?

 

I get that if everyone’s on board it would work (although we’d have weird results like someone getting 0 electoral votes but it wouldn’t matter because the EC would become a formality and we would then be popular vote)

 

but not everyone’s going to get on board. 
 

so if their votes align with the national vote, nothing changes. Right?

 

but if they don’t, then their states EC’s go to the person they didn’t pick themselves based on their state popular vote, right?

 

if the other states can win the national vote for the other guy, then these states are forced to change their EC’s against their states popular vote. 
 

but the favor is not returned should it be the opposite. Right?

 

what am I missing since you’ve been following this for so long?

[PleaseBlitz]

1 minute ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

Here's what I'm wondering:  If the EOC had historically favored Democrats and Democrats had won elections with it by NOT winning the popular vote like the GOP did in 2000 and 2016, are we having this conversation?

 

No, but Breitbart is. 

[tshile]

3 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

Here's what I'm wondering:  If the EOC had historically favored Democrats and Democrats had won elections with it by NOT winning the popular vote like the GOP did in 2000 and 2016, are we having this conversation?

Of course not. This is purely a “we didn’t win so we want to change the rules”

 

sort of like how many of these same people now want to expand scotus so they can change the fact that their guy didn’t get to appoint the justices when it was time. 

Edited November 19, 2020 by tshile