Ed Electoral College

[psionl0]

<... Good points snipped ...>

So I think if you support ranked or instant runoff voting in presidential elections, you have to support a national popular vote.

Most of your post was excellent but I don't see how any of it supports this conclusion. It is technically possible to do instant runoff voting within the current weighting system. However, it would probably be seen to be more democratic to have a separate runoff election if nobody gains an absolute majority.

No state is going to vote to diminish its influence in an election. Any constitutional change to NPV is not going to happen (and the NPVIC is unlikely to get support from enough states to implement NPV by default).

 

[Foolmewunz]

<snip>
No state is going to vote to diminish its influence in an election. Any constitutional change to NPV is not going to happen (and the NPVIC is unlikely to get support from enough states to implement NPV by default).

People keep saying that. How do you account for the low population states that are supporting the NPVIC? Hawaii, Vermont, DC and Rhode Island are all signatories. How do you account for Maine and Nebraska electing to diminish their clout in the EC?

Ya know, it's just possible that some voters and politicians see it as doing the right thing.

 

[psionl0]

How do you account for the low population states that are supporting the NPVIC? Hawaii, Vermont, DC and Rhode Island are all signatories.

Feel free to update my education if necessary but have any of those states ever ended up giving all of their EC votes to a republican candidate even though their citizens voted democrat?

How do you account for Maine and Nebraska electing to diminish their clout in the EC?

Again, I might be mistaken but AFAIK neither of those states has ever ended up splitting their vote.

Ya know, it's just possible that some voters and politicians see it as doing the right thing.

In principle gestures are fine as long as they remain "in principle". Once they start giving undesirable results you may find the principle being revisited.

 

[Foolmewunz]

NE 2008. They have one seat that is heavily urban (for Nebraskan definitions of "urban").

Funny how a decidedly conservative state isn't bothered enough by that one vote to un-change the system back to WTA. Like I said, maybe there's more than partisanship involved here.

 

[psionl0]

NE 2008. They have one seat that is heavily urban (for Nebraskan definitions of "urban").

Well done! That's an excellent demonstration of your google-fu that you employed to find that exception. Of course, Obama won by a landslide that year so it wouldn't have mattered who Nebraska gave its EC votes to.

However, as I have stated before, I don't recommend the Maine/Nebraska system. Gerrymandering would have to be a worse system than winner takes all.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Well done! That's an excellent demonstration of your google-fu that you employed to find that exception. Of course, Obama won by a landslide that year so it wouldn't have mattered who Nebraska gave its EC votes to.

However, as I have stated before, I don't recommend the Maine/Nebraska system. Gerrymandering would have to be a worse system than winner takes all.

Stop it. You're embarrassing my side of the argument with your pettifogging.

I knew that information from watching the coverage of the news this year. The commentary when Maine 2 was thought to maybe go to Trump was that it would be the second time it happened.

Find real arguments and stop denigrating people who are correcting you. I'm against the EC. I just prefer to argue honestly.

 

[psionl0]

Find real arguments and stop denigrating people who are correcting you.

Why? I have given all the real arguments under the sun in this thread but you are only interested in my responses to logically flawed partisan comments.

 

[uke2se]

Why? I have given all the real arguments under the sun in this thread but you are only interested in my responses to logically flawed partisan comments.

Who was providing logically flawed partisan comments?

Was it you? Like when you accused me of giving "Hillary lost" as the reason for rejecting the Electoral College, despite me having described exactly what I find undemocratic with the EC, and it having nothing to do with Hillary Clinton?

 

[Foolmewunz]

Why? I have given all the real arguments under the sun in this thread but you are only interested in my responses to logically flawed partisan comments.

You don't take criticism very well, do you, Donald?

You accused posters of supporting EC changes for partisan reasons. You accuse politicians of supporting it only if there's political gain. I maintain that posters here, and people in the general population support EC reform or abolishment for simple reasons of fairness. The Republic For Which it Stands has a flawed model for picking the President. It has nothing to do with whether one version or the other favors the Dems or Republicans.

There are dozens of variations of fairer systems, but in a country that calls its self a democracy, the Electoral College system and Winner Take All are horrendously unjust.



"But it gives the little guy the vote"? I want the little guy to have the vote but I don't want him/her to have 2.5 to 3.0 times the vote that other little guys get. We're all little guys. One person : One vote. Works for me.

 

[psionl0]

Who was providing logically flawed partisan comments?

The partisan argument goes, "HC got more votes than DT but didn't win therefore vote weighting is unfair". The response that vote weighting wouldn't have stopped HC getting more votes is met with glazed eyes.

There are dozens of variations of fairer systems, but in a country that calls its self a democracy, the Electoral College system and Winner Take All are horrendously unjust.

Absolutely true.

I want the little guy to have the vote but I don't want him/her to have 2.5 to 3.0 times the vote that other little guys get. We're all little guys. One person : One vote. Works for me.

Complete non-sequitur. (And that is according to your figures).

 

[uke2se]

The partisan argument goes, "HC got more votes than DT but didn't win therefore vote weighting is unfair". The response that vote weighting wouldn't have stopped HC getting more votes is met with glazed eyes.

Who made that argument?

The claim is actually "The Winner of a US election can get 3 million + votes less than the loser. This is not a system where the democratic principle of 1-person-1-vote is applied, and therefore not democratic."

It has nothing to do with the name of the winner and loser.

 

[psionl0]

The response that vote weighting wouldn't have stopped HC getting more votes is met with glazed eyes.

This is not a system where the democratic principle of 1-person-1-vote is applied, and therefore not democratic.

See what I mean?

 

[uke2se]

See what I mean?

No, since I never mentioned Hillary. In fact, I emphasized that it doesn't matter who won or lost. The criticism is about how the winner could get 3 million fewer votes than the loser.

 

[phiwum]

See what I mean?

How *********** dishonest. Not at all the gist of uke2se's point.

You honestly should be ashamed.

 

[psionl0]

The criticism is about how the winner could get 3 million fewer votes than the loser.

The explanation has been given to you over and over and over. You just aren't reading.

 

[TomB]

Most of your post was excellent but I don't see how any of it supports this conclusion. It is technically possible to do instant runoff voting within the current weighting system. However, it would probably be seen to be more democratic to have a separate runoff election if nobody gains an absolute majority.

No state is going to vote to diminish its influence in an election. Any constitutional change to NPV is not going to happen (and the NPVIC is unlikely to get support from enough states to implement NPV by default).

The problem with each state doing ranked voting in the current system is that the ranking would only kick in at the state level. So, say this creates a situation where The green party wins, enough states so that the EC vote is split three ways such that no one has the number of EC votes to win. When that happens, the decision is made by Congress.

Now, I know you're thinking that if no one won, then the instant runoff provision would kick in. But it wouldn't. The instant runoff provision kicks in at the state level, not the national to determine the the delegates for the EC from each state. So say in California the green party got 37%, the Republican party got 36% and the democratic party got 27%. The democratic votes have already been thrown out to give the green party more than 50% in that state.

So if the electoral college doesn't produce a winner, the mechanism that kicks in is that Congress chooses the winner.

Unless you think that the instant runoff should be based on the national vote majority rather than the state majority, which could mean that the green party who got the most votes in the state gets thrown out. It just doesn't seem to be very clean that way. I think it would result in some really strange situations.

 

[psionl0]

Unless you think that the instant runoff should be based on the national vote majority rather than the state majority, which could mean that the green party who got the most votes in the state gets thrown out. It just doesn't seem to be very clean that way. I think it would result in some really strange situations.

The current winner takes all EC system produces even stranger "situations".

I suspect that a lot of people might see it the way that you do even though it is simple mathematics which is why I said that "it would probably be seen to be more democratic to have a separate runoff election".

If you check back the OP, it said,

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.​

Since neither candidate got 270 electoral votes, a separate runoff election would be held (say the following week). HC may well have won the runoff election but from the raw numbers, nothing is guaranteed. What is guaranteed is that the POTUS would be elected directly by the people and not by states manipulating the vote to select their EC members.

Note also that a separate runoff election would avoid a situation that has happened in the past where some states (initially) refused to put a candidate like HC or DT on the ballot paper and leaving the final result up to the faceless men and women of the EC.

 

[uke2se]

The explanation has been given to you over and over and over. You just aren't reading.

I know the explanation for why it happens. Are you having trouble understanding that I'm talking about changing the system?

 

[TomB]

The current winner takes all EC system produces even stranger "situations".

I suspect that a lot of people might see it the way that you do even though it is simple mathematics which is why I said that "it would probably be seen to be more democratic to have a separate runoff election".

If you check back the OP, it said,

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.​

Since neither candidate got 270 electoral votes, a separate runoff election would be held (say the following week). HC may well have won the runoff election but from the raw numbers, nothing is guaranteed. What is guaranteed is that the POTUS would be elected directly by the people and not by states manipulating the vote to select their EC members.

Note also that a separate runoff election would avoid a situation that has happened in the past where some states (initially) refused to put a candidate like HC or DT on the ballot paper and leaving the final result up to the faceless men and women of the EC.

That doesn't really address what I said.

If an instant runoff/ranked voting system were put in place along with the EC system, would the instant runoff done based on the in-state vote percentages or the national vote percentages? There's a major difference.

I absolutely hate the idea of a separate runoff election. I also don't see how a separate runoff is more democratic than ranked voting. Please explain.

Your proposal really kind of undermines the concept of the electoral college by trying to make it a happy medium between the popular vote and a state vote. With the EC system, people do not vote for president. The states vote for president. The people vote for how their state will vote. Effectively, all the people of a given state vote as a bloc, though a few states have elected to split their vote.

The EC is designed around the concept of states, not individuals voting for president. It includes the weightings as a compromise between one state, one vote and vote weighted by population. If you take away the bloc voting part of the EC, it makes a lot less sense.

Arguably, the biggest problem with the EC is the rise of massive urban centers. The differences in interests aren't so much between states anymore, but within the states. And it's more than urban/rural. In Illinois, there are huge differences in interests between the Chicago area and the rest of the state.

One comment I would like make is that, because of our voting system we don't actually know who would have won a popular vote. When we draw conclusions from the vote counts in past elections, we assume that the same people would have voted under both systems. Illinois is a good illustration of why this may not be the case. Illinois is a very strongly blue state. Usually, a republican vote for president is an act of futility, because it doesn't matter. That fact likely lowers voter turnout unless there are local issues to draw them out. I imagine the same happens in reverse in some blue states. And some democrats in Illinois may feel confident enough that Illinois will go blue that they may not feel an urgency to vote either.

In short, changing the system not only changes how the votes are counted, but also people's individual motivation to vote.

 

[psionl0]

That doesn't really address what I said.

If an instant runoff/ranked voting system were put in place along with the EC system, would the instant runoff done based on the in-state vote percentages or the national vote percentages? There's a major difference.

I thought I had. A runoff election would be based on national vote percentages.

If it were based on in-state preferences then it would still be possible for a situation where nobody got the 270 EC votes.

I absolutely hate the idea of a separate runoff election. I also don't see how a separate runoff is more democratic than ranked voting. Please explain.

There would be no difference mathematically. As I explained above, the only advantage of a separate runoff election would be that if a state refused to initially put one of the big two candidates candidates on its ballot paper then the voters in that state would still get to cast their preference for one of the big two in the following runoff election.

Your proposal really kind of undermines the concept of the electoral college by trying to make it a happy medium between the popular vote and a state vote.

Exactly. The POTUS should be elected by the people voting directly and not via a state-manipulated EC process.

I have no problem with a single NPV system as long as it was not conducted on a FPTP basis. However, smaller states who could have their influence diminished by more than two thirds would most likely oppose the idea.

The biggest problem with the EC system is the winner takes all system. States have no option but to adopt that philosophy to maximize their influence on the result. If California for example were to select just 10 republicans for the EC then its net democrat count towards the election would be reduced by 20!

States may not be willing to diminish their EC count but if they all do it, they might cooperate to adopt a proportional representation instead of winner takes all.