Ed Electoral College

[JOEBIALEK]

The debate has started again as to whether the US Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process. Some promote
eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged. Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem. The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state.

This would eliminate the "winner take all" system thus allowing for all the votes to count. A voter is more apt to believe their vote counted when a percentage of popular votes are taken into account rather than the "all or nothing" system currently in existence. Further, this new system would integrate the desire for a popular vote for president with the need for the individual states to determine who actually gets elected.

As for political primaries the number of delegates awarded in each state should be determined by the percentage of votes won by each candidate.

For 2016 multiplying the percentage of votes each candidate received {in each state} times the number of electoral votes {in each state} results in the following: Clinton 256.985 and Trump 253.482.

 

[surrogate]

The system you describe doesn't address the fact that states with low populations are over represented in the distribution of electoral votes. Why should Alaska get 1 electoral vote for every ~183K residents of voting age when California only gets 1 for every ~539K, nearly a 3-1 difference?

source

 

[TragicMonkey]

We already have a bicameral legislature for the express purpose of compromising between population and distribution of that population. There is no need to seek that same compromise in the executive branch as well. Make it a straight popular vote regardless of the states. Nobody seems worried about states and representation in the third branch, so why must it be an issue for both of the other two?

 

[BobTheCoward]

There is no need to seek that same compromise in the executive branch as well.

I think that need is proportional to how autonomous and culturally separate one views states.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I think that need is proportional to how autonomous and culturally separate one views states.

Personally, I think the real divide is between urban and rural, not between individual states. There is less difference between St Louis, Chicago, Seattle, Boston, and New York than there is between any of those cities and a rural county in their same state.

 

[Wolrab]

Good luck getting enough states to agree. This result was exactly why we have an EC.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Personally, I think the real divide is between urban and rural, not between individual states. There is less difference between St Louis, Chicago, Seattle, Boston, and New York than there is between any of those cities and a rural county in their same state.

So exactly as I described. You have lower regard for states as distinct entities and you support more of a popular vote for president.

 

[TragicMonkey]

So exactly as I described. You have lower regard for states as distinct entities and you support more of a popular vote for president.

Which is what I said. In plainer English than you, also.

 

[CapelDodger]

So exactly as I described. You have lower regard for states as distinct entities and you support more of a popular vote for president.

I would myself. The electoral college was introduced to address the difference between population and electorate resulting from slavery. Slavery's long gone. Heck, even women get to vote now.

The Presidency is remarkably weak in the US, but it comes into its own as the country's face to the world. Out there beyond the Constitution a President can really strut his stuff.

 

[fuelair]

The system you describe doesn't address the fact that states with low populations are over represented in the distribution of electoral votes. Why should Alaska get 1 electoral vote for every ~183K residents of voting age when California only gets 1 for every ~539K, nearly a 3-1 difference?

source

We know and it sucks and I will be happy seeing the states that are given too much power that way lose it all since they are the ones most pushing their religious silliness (being nice for the moment) on the rest of us because of that foul idea!!!!!

 

[logger]

We're actually not going to change it. Leftists will just have to suck up their losses.

 

[logger]

We know and it sucks and I will be happy seeing the states that are given too much power that way lose it all since they are the ones most pushing their religious silliness (being nice for the moment) on the rest of us because of that foul idea!!!!!

Lol

We aren't changing it, you'll never get it done.

 

[theprestige]

The system you describe doesn't address the fact that states with low populations are over represented in the distribution of electoral votes. Why should Alaska get 1 electoral vote for every ~183K residents of voting age when California only gets 1 for every ~539K, nearly a 3-1 difference?

source

Even so, California still drowns out Alaska every time.

And saying "states with low populations are over represented" is begging the question. It's only true for people who subscribe to your value system, or don't bother to examine it.

 

[phiwum]

Even so, California still drowns out Alaska every time.

And saying "states with low populations are over represented" is begging the question. It's only true for people who subscribe to your value system, or don't bother to examine it.

No, it's a plain fact. A vote in a low population state produces a greater difference in the outcome than a vote in a high population state. We may debate whether this is good thing or not, but the sense in which low-pop states are over-represented is not a matter of controversy.

 

[Babbylonian]

Even so, California still drowns out Alaska every time.

And saying "states with low populations are over represented" is begging the question. It's only true for people who subscribe to your value system, or don't bother to examine it.

That's some high-level gibberish right there. A fundamental principle of a democratic "value system" is one person, one vote. Valuing some votes differently from others goes against that, full stop.

And this isn't a new idea, either. The worth of the electoral college has been questioned since just about forever, and not just when an evil narcissist ends up benefiting from it.

 

[crescent]

And saying "states with low populations are over represented" is begging the question. It's only true for people who subscribe to your value system, or don't bother to examine it.

Actually, it's just math.

Values have nothing to do with it. Plain, boring old math.

 

[psionl0]

The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state.

I think along similar lines. However, unless you have runoff elections, you would still need an electoral college to thrash out the ultimate winner (unless you think that FPTP is still a good idea ).

 

[psionl0]

Good luck getting enough states to agree. This result was exactly why we have an EC.

Yep. You would have to abolish the states (or make them subservient to the federal government) before you could get the smaller states to agree to reduce their representation in the electoral college.

 

[stevea]

The debate has started again as to whether the US Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process. Some promote
eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while

The electoral college was, in part, created precisely to avoid that. We do not have a democratic vote for Pres, b/c everyone who contemplates the matter recognizes that democracy is actually pretty awful. I'm not convinced that the state influence (~18.6% of total e-votes) is a huge improvement, but at least it's something. In the first several Congress' the per-state votes were around 30% of the total electoral vote. That ratio declined a lot, until the number of house seats was fixed at 535 in the 1960s.

others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged. Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem. The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state.

I'm not opposed, BUT you need to ask yourself why 48 of 50 states could easily switch to apportioned electoral voting, but only two (Maine & Nedbraska) have. In apportioned voting each house district elects one elector, and then the state majority determines the two per-state electors. Instead MOST states (48/50) have a winner-take-all scheme for electoral votes. Apportioned votes would be a lot closer to your fractional point system, but does not require a constitutional amendment.

I think the reason why most states have winner-take-all electoral votes is twofold. This gives the swing state a lot more attention from candidates. A candidate will pander to a Florida-size state when it means they get 29 votes instead of zero, but the interest is far less when it means getting 15 votes instead of 14. The other issue is that the state Senates control this apportionment issue, and they are typically partisans of the more popular party in that state. A NY Democratic state senate, or a AZ Rep state senate would not prefer to see their states votes split.

NB: The fact that even a democratically elected state senate prefers such an undemocratic scheme is a good example of how and why democracy sucks. A Rep in NY state, or a Dem in AZ are disenfranchised voters, and that is precisely what the majority in each state prefer. The 51% rule, and the rights of the 49% are ignored, ergo democracy stinks.

This would eliminate the "winner take all" system thus allowing for all the votes to count. A voter is more apt to believe their vote counted when a percentage of popular votes are taken into account rather than the "all or nothing" system currently in existence. Further, this new system would integrate the desire for a popular vote for president with the need for the individual states to determine who actually gets elected.

/ All or nothing is already a per-state decision.
/ the popular desire for a majority Pres vote should make every reasonable person fear. It's a very bad idea.
/ I think the more basic problem is the domination of elections by only 2 parties (and 2, usually poor, polar policies). I think we should have something like an 'instant runoff' of 'fair' vote. we should also eliminate the 2-party advantage embedded on our system (matching funds, funded primaries, special treatment of party funds to candidates).

As for political primaries the number of delegates awarded in each state should be determined by the percentage of votes won by each candidate.

Political parties are private entities with ZERO requirement as to how or if they select candidates. They can throw darts, or pick names from a hat for all I care. My issue is that they should not receive public funding or guidance wrt to their primary process (if any).

I'd also strongly prefer that parties be treated precisely like PACs - they can run all the issue advocacy they want, and compile names etc - but that should not be able to donate more than ~$5k to any one candidate ! This eliminates a lot of the money in politics and decreases the power of the 2-party hegemony. [I don't think it will happen for reasons already described].

In my ideal world we should want to see these politically powerful monolithic parties reduced for precisely the same reason we disallow monopolies in economics. Their scale harms competition (of ideas) and this is against the interest of the population broadly

For 2016 multiplying the percentage of votes each candidate received {in each state} times the number of electoral votes {in each state} results in the following: Clinton 256.985 and Trump 253.482.

Which is why Alaska & Wyoming and several dozen more will never ratify your amendment. They are giving away massive power by simply apportioning those per-state electoral votes.

 

[uke2se]

The electoral college was, in part, created precisely to avoid that. We do not have a democratic vote for Pres, b/c everyone who contemplates the matter recognizes that democracy is actually pretty awful.

Everyone who contemplates the matter? No, not everyone. Quite a few people look at the system you guys have and say "gee, that's pretty awful" and are thankful for our "one-person-one-vote" system.