Ed Electoral College

psionl0 said:
Curiously, nobody seems to be interested in a fairer outcome. They are more interested in the ideological position of diminishing the say that smaller states have in an election even though this vote weighting has a much smaller effect on the outcome than the way that votes are counted does.
Click to expand...

Baloney. My point was that FPTP is a completely separate issue from EC versus NPV, which is the OP topic, and my "ideological position" is that one man one vote is fairer and more democratic than the EC. If you can agree on that much, then we might discuss using some sort of "instant runoff" ranking system with the NPV instead of FPTP. If we were to have a Constitutional amendment, we could consider including that, but that's just not likely in the foreseeable future. However, if NPVIC were adopted by enough states to make the EC irrelevant, then there might be some willingness to seriously consider an amendment to "do it right."
 
WilliamSeger said:
Baloney.
Click to expand...
You are pointing the finger in the wrong direction. Even when it is demonstrated in black and white that the vote weighting of the smaller states wouldn't have stopped Hillary from getting more votes, you still prefer to focus on an unachievable ideological position than in the reality.

A campaign to change the "winner takes all" system has more chance of getting off the ground than one to make the smaller states even less relevant but you are not interested in what is achievable.

WilliamSeger said:
My point was that FPTP is a completely separate issue from EC versus NPV, which is the OP topic, and my "ideological position" is that one man one vote is fairer and more democratic than the EC.
Click to expand...
Q.E.D.


WilliamSeger said:
However, if NPVIC were adopted by enough states to make the EC irrelevant, then there might be some willingness to seriously consider an amendment to "do it right."
Click to expand...
Presidents who don't stuff up as badly as everybody thought they would often get more votes for their second term. It will be interesting to see what happens if California et al have to give all of their EC votes to DT in the 2020 election. :D
 
psionl0 said:
You are pointing the finger in the wrong direction. Even when it is demonstrated in black and white that the vote weighting of the smaller states wouldn't have stopped Hillary from getting more votes, you still prefer to focus on an unachievable ideological position than in the reality.
Click to expand...

Baloney again; NPVIC is quite achievable -- if you don't think so, I'm not sure you understand what it is -- and it's easier than getting all states to go to proportional allocation. It only needs enough states to total 270 votes.

psionl0 said:
A campaign to change the "winner takes all" system has more chance of getting off the ground than one to make the smaller states even less relevant but you are not interested in what is achievable.
Click to expand...

No, it has very little chance of getting off the ground without a Constitutional amendment to force all states use it. That's because states will see that if they adopt proportional allocation when other states are still winner-take-all, they'd just be diluting the voting power of their electorate's majority while making the overall result even less fair. But even if they all did, it would still be an unfair, disproportionate system. There's no point in tweaking a broken system when fixing it is easier.

Your comment about "mak(ing) the smaller states even less relevant" reveals that you're still stuck on the concept of geography having voting power. NPV makes all voters equally relevant, regardless of where they live. Not only would that be fairer and more democratic, it would change the way candidates campaign, for the better.
 
psionl0 said:
What part of "the vote weighting of the smaller states wouldn't have stopped Hillary from getting more votes" didn't you understand?
Click to expand...

Well for starters, I didn't understand why you think the last election has anything whatsoever to do with the proposition that NPV is fairer and more democratic than the EC (ETA: other than what was already known, that is). But also, I was mainly responding to the part about "you still prefer to focus on an unachievable ideological position than in the reality," which didn't make much sense, either. NPVIC is certainly achievable and it satisfies my "ideological position" of wanting a fairer and more democratic system.
 
Last edited:
WilliamSeger said:
Well for starters, I didn't understand why you think the last election has anything whatsoever to do with the proposition that NPV is fairer and more democratic than the EC would get Hillary elected.
Click to expand...
ftfy. This is what it's all about. If you were really concerned about "fairness" then you would have a problem with somebody getting elected even though most voters didn't want them.

As for the "NPVIC", I don't know if enough states will join so that they add up to 270+ EC votes but you can be sure that no "red" state will ever join such an accord and very few "swing" states would willingly deal themselves out of the picture. Even then, if the NPVIC states have to give their EC votes to a despised republican candidate then you can be sure that many will balk.

The only way you can come up with a more equitable voting system is through a constitutional change. This is achievable (after all, the US is famous for its lobbying system) but not if states have to vote to diminish their influence in a POTUS election.
 
Last edited:
phiwum said:
Sorry, but I think that there's a nonsequitur there.

The EC is defended on grounds that it increases participation among rural states. This does not mean that such a goal is particularly "democratic", but rather that this is one of the good things the EC provides.

Of course, you and I may doubt whether it's a good effect. I don't really have much opinion, and so I'm not necessarily supporting the idea that this effect is good.
Click to expand...

The effect is to give over-representation to rural states. Whether that's good or bad depends on party affiliation and adherence to democratic principles.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
The over representation issue is something I've already accounted for. Despite that the EC make up grants a 100+ typical EC head start to democrats because big states house large urban centers... Even with the over representation... winning conservative candidates have to win more of them plus swing states to often compensate.

You're missing the point. And again... I'm not suggesting this is some rigged ploy so that democrats can win each cycle. Thise large EC states in spite of the representation issue youre raising... still have high EC counts because they're highly populated and thats a rough metric by which EC's are determined
Click to expand...

I understand that the large EC states have large EC counts. I'm saying that they are still under-represented compared to rural states. I'm not sure if you are forgetting that under a popular vote system, states wouldn't matter. The only thing that matters is one person one vote. That means that wherever voters are found, politicians will need to address them. In the current "Winner takes all" system it might make sense to only campaign in big states. It would not in a popular vote system.
 
psionl0 said:
Of course not. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

No, what I said was:

The effect is to give over-representation to rural states.
Click to expand...

Which is simply a fact. That rural states vote predominantly red is possibly why I'm more concerned with this than you. We're both clearly biased. However, there's simply no arguing that a popular vote system is more in line with democratic principles than the EC system.
 
uke2se said:
That rural states vote predominantly red is possibly why I'm more concerned with this than you.
Click to expand...
Exactly! If they were blue voters then this wouldn't be an issue for you. The fact remains that "Hillary lost" is not a sufficiently good reason to question the EC system (though there are other reasons that are good enough to question it).
 
psionl0 said:
Exactly! If they were blue voters then this wouldn't be an issue for you. The fact remains that "Hillary lost" is not a sufficiently good reason to question the EC system (though there are other reasons that are good enough to question it).
Click to expand...

You really don't know what you're talking about, do you, and are thus trying to paint this as a partisan issue?

I fear several are arguing from ignorance, here. Here are the largest categories of states that get an unfair advantage from the weighting of the EC towards less populous states:

The sixteen lowest states (15 plus DC) by population account for 3, 4, or 5 EC votes, each. To hear you guys talk, this is all Marlboro Country and the New Riders of the Purple Sage are all voting Republican. Reality doesn't bear this out. If you bother to look them up, you'll find that there are a number of presently blue states (and pleasantly, if you want to be partisan about it), including Delaware, DC, Vermont (3 EC votes, each), Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island(4 EC votes each) and New Mexico with 5 votes. That's 8 out of 15.
Total Dem EC votes from these purported "red states" is 30.

The firm red states are Alaska, Montana, West Virginia, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska and Wyoming. 8 states - same as Dems. 29 EC votes. Advantage to dreaded red states..... Minus 1 !!!!

It has nothing to do with "partisan". It has to do with fair.

Let's clear another bit of nonsense, shall we? Four of the signatories to the NPVIC are in those Democratic low-population states. (DC, Hawaii, Vermont, NH).

The other category for states whose citizens get hurt most is "fastest growing". Since House seats are assigned based on the last census, any state that has grown by leaps and bounds in the period since is going to be even more under-represented (by popular vote vs EC votes) standards. This impacts red states more. The current leaders in this negative category are Texas, Florida and Arizona.
 
psionl0 said:
ftfy.
Click to expand...

You really ought to stop telling people what they mean. You're not the final judge.

For all you know, these other posters have complained about EC for years. You are in no position to presume that this is all about the recent election (debacle that it was --- not that I presume Trump wouldn't have won if it had been a popular vote election, but any world in which Trump wins is just screwed up).

Personally, I have no dog in this fight, no opinion about whether EC is a good thing or a bad thing. This despite the fact that I am appalled at the results of the last election. So, maybe, just maybe, persons on both sides can separate their disdain for recent results from their opinions on U.S. election policies and principles.
 
The electoral college, I think serves three purposes. The value of each of those purposes is debatable.

First, it takes the actual selection of the president out of the hands of the general population and places it into the hands of people who would theoretically be well informed. This made sense at the time, I think, due to the relatively slow and limited spread of news at the time. Given that we have a constant bombardment of every trivial event from multiple news sources available, I don't think this function is needed any longer.

Second, it allows the residents of a state to cast their votes as a bloc. When people say the electoral college is not democratic, it's not that simple. We look at it as a national election, but it really is not. It's 51 democratic (one person one vote) election in each state (and DC) to determine how the state's votes will be cast. Most states have decided to cast all their votes for the winner, and some have decided to split them. Regardless, the election is really about how the state will cast it's vote.

Again, at the time this made sense as the states were significantly different from each other and people identified with their state rather than as a part of a single national population. The current dived, however, is more urban rural than state vs state.

Third, it allows for the weighting of votes for the states. I'm not sure how much of an effect this has actually had on elections. The fact that most states allocate their votes as winner take all probably has more of an effect. But if you think weighting is needed, you need the EC to do it. Again, in the context of the times, it made sense. Now, not so much.

Currently, the weighting results in overrepresentation of small population states while winner take all results in under-representation of political minorities (Republicans in Illinois and California, Democrats in Indiana, etc.)

Personally, I think winner takes all is a bigger problem. I like the ranked voting system, because it has the potential to eventually allow new political parties to get elected. I think such a thing, however, is structurally incompatible with a proportional allocation of votes in the EC. On the other hand, in a winner take all system, third party candidates winning a few states in a close election could throw the decision to congress, which I don't see as a good thing. So I think if you support ranked or instant runoff voting in presidential elections, you have to support a national popular vote.

The consequence, of course, is that you can't weight results in a popular vote, so urban interests will be more powerful than rural interests. Fortunately, we have a solution for this: congress, or more specifically, the senate.
 
Foolmewunz said:
You really don't know what you're talking about, do you, and are thus trying to paint this as a partisan issue?

<...snip...>
Click to expand...
If you are only going to quote my responses to some of the statements that are made by clearly partisan posters then you can't make any meaningful inference about what I am posting.

Your figures only verify what I have been saying all along; vote weighting by state has nowhere near as much influence on the election result as some people are claiming. In fact, if your conclusion is correct then it actually disadvantages the Republican party slightly.

So those who believe that vote weighting is the only issue that needs to be considered are flogging the wrong horse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom