Ed Electoral College

[Aepervius]

You are welcome to show the posts of yours that criticized the EC system in 2012.

You are welcome to look up. Every time the EC discussion comes up, I am here to voice this is a stupid half backed system. Either keep it as it originally was , no vote of the american, or go all the way through and use popular vote. But that half half is stupid.

 

[uke2se]

You are welcome to show the posts of yours that criticized the EC system in 2012.

Ah, so you were saying that it is just me that's a loser because I didn't post about how I thought the EC system was stupid before?

 

[Foolmewunz]

Sure, losers have been bitching about the EC system since federation.

Oh, stop! Are you all studying at the Logger College of Neener Neener Neener? Numerous of us, on these boards, have talking about the evils of the EC for a number of years. In my case, since 1960 when I was 10. You can find posts by me during a Democratic presidency (this last one) describing how totally unfair it has the potential to be. It is not the EC so much as it is "Winner Take All". The EC, white elephant that it would become, could still function close-to-fairly if the states would adopt proportional results.

 

[marplots]

Dumping the EC has the possibility of introducing an unwanted (at least I think it would be unwanted) dynamic. Here's my thought experiment.

Suppose we have two candidates who are largely uncontroversial. Except on one particular issue, say the legalization of marijuana. One candidate wants to roll back legalization and start prosecuting dope smokers using the full force and power of federal law. (The example works with other issues as well.)

However, the anti-marijuana issue isn't hammered on much during the campaign. Mostly those involved in the cannabis industry and those opposed know about it. The rest of the country is focused on other things - they will mostly vote along party lines.

Now, consider there is a group (LDS maybe?) who latches onto the anti-ganja issue and is able to recruit a large number of voters because of it. Suddenly, this outlying issue has the potential to drive the election. Why? Because a large voting block, even if it is confined to a single (or a few states) has the power to alter the overall results of the election.

And that's a flaw. Because we aren't talking about the "will of the people" as a realizable ideal, but the more pragmatic "will of the people who actually vote." Geographically connected majorities who vote overwhelmingly have the potential to alter outcomes for the entire country.

If marijuana doesn't seem to fit, change it to a farm bill or water rights or an issue with ramifications for a particular set of states. An issue which brings out the numbers (either in favor or opposed) and carries the election along with it.

 

[phiwum]

Try this: American citizens are over-represented in American Congressional elections.

Or this: British MPs are under-represented in votes of the Israeli Knesset.

I think you're wrong in your use of the term. I'll try to remember that you mean by it a value-neutral description of how the US system weights the votes from each state in the Union, even though I think it self-evidently is not a value-neutral term. I'm sure you'll be quick to remind me if I forget and dispute your point again.

Your "argument" here is so odd that I'm afraid I can't come up with any relevant response at all.

 

[Aepervius]

Dumping the EC has the possibility of introducing an unwanted (at least I think it would be unwanted) dynamic. Here's my thought experiment.

Suppose we have two candidates who are largely uncontroversial. Except on one particular issue, say the legalization of marijuana. One candidate wants to roll back legalization and start prosecuting dope smokers using the full force and power of federal law. (The example works with other issues as well.)

However, the anti-marijuana issue isn't hammered on much during the campaign. Mostly those involved in the cannabis industry and those opposed know about it. The rest of the country is focused on other things - they will mostly vote along party lines.

Now, consider there is a group (LDS maybe?) who latches onto the anti-ganja issue and is able to recruit a large number of voters because of it. Suddenly, this outlying issue has the potential to drive the election. Why? Because a large voting block, even if it is confined to a single (or a few states) has the power to alter the overall results of the election.

And that's a flaw. Because we aren't talking about the "will of the people" as a realizable ideal, but the more pragmatic "will of the people who actually vote." Geographically connected majorities who vote overwhelmingly have the potential to alter outcomes for the entire country.

If marijuana doesn't seem to fit, change it to a farm bill or water rights or an issue with ramifications for a particular set of states. An issue which brings out the numbers (either in favor or opposed) and carries the election along with it.

This is already the case, albeit for other pernicious issues. See Iowa and corn for example. The EC as it is exacerbate concentrating on small state / swing state, where a bit of lobbying pay much greater return than , say, big state like california.

That flaw you describe is not alleviated by the presidential election as it is. In fact it is exacerbated, you need to lobby/go to fewer people with a bigger swing.

That's why frankly Iowa for example play a much disproportional play than say california, during campaigning. By having such disproportion between votes, you encourage what you describe. With a 1 vote== 1 voter, you dilute such small swing group to nothingness.

So if you want to avoid a small group swinging an election, the EC as it is, is actually the wrong way.

 

[Aepervius]

To give you a concrete example, even ignoring the proportion of democrats/republican voters, if I could campaign and try to change the mind of 1 million of people in Iowa, or California, even assuming there is not a winner take all,since each vote of california are 1/3.7 the vote of of Iowa (IIRC) than I need to convince a much lower number of people that my issue is important, to win the same number of EC votes proportionally.

This is even worst with winner take all, as I need to convince enough only swing the state, and thus i need much less money to campaign and try to convince people than I would in california.

But if 1 voter== 1 vote , than effect disappear.

So the negative effect your describe, is actually exacerbated by winner take all and the fact that voters don't weight identically.


As for the critic that this would give too much power to state like california, the world of tomorrow is far more likely to be produced/patented by california than Iowa, same for job production.

 

[LTC8K6]

The belief in the basic capability of the majority to make somewhat rational decisions. It worked this time. The majority did make a rational decision.

You are intentionally leaving out the other voters, though. You know that a popular vote election would be different. You know that you can't simply transfer the votes and claim that would be the result.

Just as you are intentionally claiming, without evidence, that Trump is unfit for office and the EC should have "protected" the USA from him.

You just keep parroting that the EC is worthless because it didn't do what you think it should have done.

You also haven't offered any alternative to the EC that would have done what you think should have been done.

 

[Wolrab]

The arguments are all moot as the USA is not and has never been a democracy. The rules are set and everyone running for the presidency knows them. Tough luck to the loser.

 

[LTC8K6]

And these are the only requirements to be President:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

 

[fuelair]

ftfy.

No, from the beginning- it should never have happened/been established - I have thought this since I knew anything about the EC and the bad reasons it was established for!!!!! Trump is just the icing on that cake - icing that has the taste of ******!!

 

[marplots]

This is already the case, albeit for other pernicious issues. See Iowa and corn for example. The EC as it is exacerbate concentrating on small state / swing state, where a bit of lobbying pay much greater return than , say, big state like california.

That flaw you describe is not alleviated by the presidential election as it is. In fact it is exacerbated, you need to lobby/go to fewer people with a bigger swing.

That's why frankly Iowa for example play a much disproportional play than say california, during campaigning. By having such disproportion between votes, you encourage what you describe. With a 1 vote== 1 voter, you dilute such small swing group to nothingness.

So if you want to avoid a small group swinging an election, the EC as it is, is actually the wrong way.

I disagree and I think you missed a nuance. First, in any well balanced election, either mechanism can swing the result. But what I was getting at is a local explosion of the number of votes cast. I think someone already mentioned that the population of Los Angeles was enough to swing this last election (I haven't checked that).

If all of Iowa votes Republican, it currently only ensures the same number of electors in the EC. This would not be true in a popular vote system. My thought experiment relies on not just the number of potential votes, but those actually voting, which may vary dramatically if there is a local, hot-button issue in play.

Should it matter if 10% of New York voters vote instead of 80%? It would matter a great deal under a popular vote setup.

Cherry picking the high and low from the data (http://www.electproject.org/2016g), we see that more than 70% of eligible voters in Colorado voted (2016 general election) while only 42% of Hawaiians did. Under the current system I claim that both states got a fair result - even though not all their citizens voted.

The current system allows for a sampling by state which is unavailable in a popular vote system, where raw numbers count more.

 

[fuelair]

You are welcome to show the posts of yours that criticized the EC system in 2012.

Don't remember if I made any, but, again, I have never liked the EC from the time I found out the details of how it worked. Can't speak for others, but I know unfairness when I see it!!! And the EC means we do not have an actual democracy, nor a true representative democracy.

 

[fuelair]

You are intentionally leaving out the other voters, though. You know that a popular vote election would be different. You know that you can't simply transfer the votes and claim that would be the result.

Just as you are intentionally claiming, without evidence, that Trump is unfit for office and the EC should have "protected" the USA from him.

You just keep parroting that the EC is worthless because it didn't do what you think it should have done.

You also haven't offered any alternative to the EC that would have done what you think should have been done.

One person, one vote period - no EC- would certainly have been totally fair and would have done it.

 

[fuelair]

Don't remember if I made any, but, again, I have never liked the EC from the time I found out the details of how it worked. Can't speak for others, but I know unfairness when I see it!!! And the EC means we do not have an actual democracy, nor a true representative democracy.

Late 50's /early 60s was when.......

 

[LTC8K6]

One person, one vote period - no EC- would certainly have been totally fair and would have done it.

How would that have prevented Trump from winning the election?

How would it prevent a new popular Hitler from winning?

Where is the safety catch?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Hypothetical for EC opponents: if I convinced you that citizen identity with their states was comparable to national identities in other countries, would that change your opinion on the EC?

Hypothetical for supporters: if I convinced you that local identity was dead in this country, and there was it a single, national identity, would that change your mind on the EC?

 

[fuelair]

Sure, losers have been bitching about the EC system since federation.

No, people who think/believe every vote should count exactly the same! My vote should count neither more or less than your vote. But, I take your point in one way: People who get more votes but lose because of the EC would logically feel that way - with perfectly rational reasoning!!!!!

 

[marplots]

Hypothetical for EC opponents: if I convinced you that citizen identity with their states was comparable to national identities in other countries, would that change your opinion on the EC?

Hypothetical for supporters: if I convinced you that local identity was dead in this country, and there was it a single, national identity, would that change your mind on the EC?

I'll take the second, although my stance is really that it doesn't matter objectively and is strictly a matter of preference.

If local identity were dead then the EC would be redundant, but not harmful. Why? Because gerrymandering depends on local identity to function. Without local identity you get an homogenized electorate. State affiliation then becomes just another way to sample an evenly distributed population - neither better nor worse than taking the nation as a whole.

 

[psionl0]

Actually not only the losers have discussed it. For example it was discussed in 2008 and 2012 too , two years where actually the democrate won.

I couldn't find much dating from 2012 but the US politics section is a big section. Nevertheless, I will concede that your position on the EC may be consistent for at least that length of time.

I am not defending the EC system (merely observing a sharp rise in the "EC bad" type posts since Trump's election). The winner take all system especially can give rise to unfair results and render some states irrelevant because of their predictable majority. It should have been seen as a logical consequence once parties dominated the political system since states would seek to maximize the effect of their votes in the election of the POTUS.

There are a number of ways the EC system could be reformed (I have suggested some myself) but possibly the worst reform would be a single national vote conducted under FPTP. At the very least, there should be runoff elections if the US were to go down that path.