Is the Electoral College good for America?

[Dragoonster]

Voted strongtly disagree. It offers no value for America that I can see and should be abolished asap. I don't feel like arguing about it much because people who support it have reasons other than 1 man-1 vote democracy motivating them, and almost all arguments are secondary to that ideal (at least when picking POTUS, imo).

But some statistics, let's assume every American can vote (or calculate that ratio yourself if you want, proportion per candidate would be the same)...

If a candidate received every vote from every city over 50,000 in the US with his competitor receiving the rest of the votes, he'd lose the election about 36% to 63% (601 such cities ca. 2000):

http://www.demographia.com/db-uscity98.htm

If a candidate received every vote from every urban center over 500,000, the election would be split about 50%/50% (69 such centers ca. 2000):

http://www.demographia.com/db-ua2000compare.htm

There's plenty of room for any candidate to view stump time in rural areas as worthwhile.

 

[Pookster]

But some statistics, let's assume every American can vote (or calculate that ratio yourself if you want, proportion per candidate would be the same)...

If a candidate received every vote from every city over 50,000 in the US with his competitor receiving the rest of the votes, he'd lose the election about 36% to 63% (601 such cities ca. 2000):

http://www.demographia.com/db-uscity98.htm

If a candidate received every vote from every urban center over 500,000, the election would be split about 50%/50% (69 such centers ca. 2000):

http://www.demographia.com/db-ua2000compare.htm

There's plenty of room for any candidate to view stump time in rural areas as worthwhile.

Good info. I also found this ...

In 2007, 50.13% of Americans lived in the 40 most populous Metropolitan Statistical Areas. This made the Jacksonville, FL MSA the median population American community.

Jacksonville's MSA population in 2007 is 1,300,823.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas

 

[Dragoonster]

Good info. I also found this ...

In 2007, 50.13% of Americans lived in the 40 most populous Metropolitan Statistical Areas. This made the Jacksonville, FL MSA the median population American community.

Jacksonville's MSA population in 2007 is 1,300,823.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas

Good double-checking, my search yielded the same site I'd seen a couple years ago so I went with that one. I guess urban creep makes definitions difficult or easily manipulated.

I still hold that rural areas are worthy enough in a pop-vote election--if they're much less %-wise than I'd thought, they should equally be much less worthy than the large areas cited. To give some of my other reasons though...


Mainly, I feel Congress sufficiently fulfills a state-proportional representation, and their slight (house) or great (senate) disproportion between reps and voters is better excused as after elected they'll retain the expectations of the constituency to represent their state as well as caring for the nation as a whole.

SCOTUS represents the Constitution and federal law, not states or state law (or only informed by the latter). Though its rulings often define the divide or domains between these things, Justices are never expected to promote interpretations of individual states. I'm kind of ambivalent on how they're appointed though, perhaps their pool should only be state supreme court justices, affording a modicum of equal state representation. Or those being the circuit pool then that being the SCOTUS pool or something...oh hell I don't care.

POTUS once elected will represent every citizen equally, and should show bias towards no state more than another. As such each citizen should have equal electoral power. States should have equal power only as far as their population goes*. Proportional voting creates a conflict-of-interest, a conflict-of-campaigning vs. duties, etc. if one citizen means more to his election than another, before his term or before a reelection campaign.

I think the EC is needlessly federalistic considering Congress is elected proportionally. It also has archaic and practical reasons for existing, but those reasons are not so difficult to overcome that they override the democratic ideal of 1 man-1 vote enfranchisment. Difficulty in counting votes for instance should never be a process-changing issue for a democracy that could easily do it if it standardized machines and hired competent workers/overseers.

National campaigning will evolve slightly, but I don't see any reason it would create a lack of representation by the populace that overweighs the representation afforded by the Senate and lesser-so the House. If one candidate ignores rural areas, the other can try to snap some up while not taking too much time. Or send his VP or others to do so.

You get the final response, for some reason EC is one of the few issues I get really boiled up about so I don't want to get into it too much. No clue why. The other two are abortion and Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

My biases: I've lived in Virginia about 28 years and California 7. The 2000 election made me roll my eyes more but I felt as strongly way before then. I do favor a stronger national government over state's rights in most issues though, probably far more than is reality or even healthy for the country. But don't think that colors my EC view.

*the House already allocates exactly the same as the EC-100, again Congress should be enough fulfillment of the federalism argument imo, with 2 rep minimum per state. Trying to additionally use the two systems together for a single elected official is just funky, undemocratic, nutso, and way overcomplicating things.

 

[Pookster]

Good double-checking, my search yielded the same site I'd seen a couple years ago so I went with that one. I guess urban creep makes definitions difficult or easily manipulated.

You know what they say about statistics too.

I still hold that rural areas are worthy enough in a pop-vote election--if they're much less %-wise than I'd thought, they should equally be much less worthy than the large areas cited. To give some of my other reasons though...

My concern is more for States with relatively small populations. I just don't see candidates spending much if any time with them in a close election. To use a sports analogy (and probably a poor one ), how many teams strategy is to go for field goals when you're more likely to win going for touchdowns? Small States with small metro areas are going to get ignored, for the most part, in a national popular vote. It makes little sense to spend time and money with them when your opponent is going after the bigger population areas too. I don't see this as healthy for the country as a whole. The only way I see this as not happening is if you have a regional candidate, which is what the Founders were concerned about.

... POTUS once elected will represent every citizen equally, and should show bias towards no state more than another. ...

This is where I believe the strength of an electoral college lies. It does greatly inhibit factions and regional candidates that likely will have strong biases/loyalties that are not always going to be in the best interest of the country as a whole. It was a big concern of the Founders when considering a national popular vote. Federalist No. 10 goes into Madison's reasoning. He talks about the need for a well constructed union. He talks about how the latent causes of faction are "sown in the nature of man." The electoral college is a part of that construct that helps to control the effects of factions.

Quoting Madison:

"The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State."

How difficult would it be for a faction (religious, geographic, etc.) with less regard for the good of the country as a whole than their own agenda to possibly win a plurality? Now, they'd have to cobble together majorities in enough States to get 270 electoral votes. I believe this is the kind of thing the Founders wanted to greatly inhibit.

I think the EC is needlessly federalistic considering Congress is elected proportionally. It also has archaic and practical reasons for existing, but those reasons are not so difficult to overcome that they override the democratic ideal of 1 man-1 vote enfranchisment. Difficulty in counting votes for instance should never be a process-changing issue for a democracy that could easily do it if it standardized machines and hired competent workers/overseers.

The executive branch is an integral part of the federal construct of the Founders. While the electoral college could be argued as being needless, you're taking away part of the foundation of the house. You best make sure what you put in its place doesn't leave the house unstable or less able to weather storms that are bound to come. While democracy is what we should strive for, it is fraught with danger if not contained within a proper structure.

You get the final response, for some reason EC is one of the few issues I get really boiled up about so I don't want to get into it too much. No clue why. The other two are abortion and Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

It can be quite a contentious issue. I completely understand.

My biases: I've lived in Virginia about 28 years and California 7. The 2000 election made me roll my eyes more but I felt as strongly way before then. I do favor a stronger national government over state's rights in most issues though, probably far more than is reality or even healthy for the country. But don't think that colors my EC view.

The 2000 election was a nightmare. I was totally disgusted with the whole thing. But the way I see it, the problem was limited to Florida because of the Electoral College. With the vote so close, it leaves me to wonder just how many Palm Beach counties would have occurred all over the country as Bush and Gore dug for more votes. As it was, the digging was only beneficial in Florida. If Florida had not screwed up it's election process so badly, I honestly believe Gore would've won it in the end, and the whole electoral college issue would've been mute.

 

[dudalb]

I said secession would be "ideal." Oh noes, all this sudden talk about "plausibility" has gravely threatened my world-view.

So your world view is totally unimpacted by factors such as plausibility or reality. Thanks for making that clear.
You are a classic example of the 18 to 23 year old know it all.Nobody can tell you anything.
Hopefully you will grow out of it.

 

[Cain]

So your world view is totally unimpacted by factors such as plausibility or reality. Thanks for making that clear.

Good one, champ. Some people would have thought I was being sarcastic, but not you. State secession plays an extremely prominent role in my world-view. I do think ideal state society theorizing has an important role to play in political questions. Political philosophy was my bailiwick in grad school. Anyway... http://youtube.com/watch?v=FD7zSLaSXRc

You are a classic example of the 18 to 23 year old know it all.Nobody can tell you anything.
Hopefully you will grow out of it.

You have repeated this several different times, and twice in this thread. As I have already told you, I fall outside the 18-23 range, so unfortunately I am not young enough to still know everything. I mean, if anything look at how reluctant I am to comment on most events, and still more reluctant to start threads. Most of my posts are concentrated in single threads rather than spread out. You also have a habit of misunderstanding what I am saying, as well as repeating this whole "cool/hipster" B.S.:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/search.php?searchid=1497598

 

[Just thinking]

Australian Referendum, 1999.

We were given a choice of a US style system or the current system.

Wisely, we did not change.

The very fact that such a referendum was created and brought before the population shows that such concern is indeed present in your country. Also, you prove my point (in a somewhat skewed manner) in that what may very well work in the US does not get overwhelming support in Australia. Plus, how was that vote taken? In a straight up and down popular vote? If so, how is it surprising to you then that those in power would choose not to give it up? Hence, your comment is nothing more than political opinion.

 

[Just thinking]

The 2000 election was a nightmare. I was totally disgusted with the whole thing. But the way I see it, the problem was limited to Florida because of the Electoral College. With the vote so close, it leaves me to wonder just how many Palm Beach counties would have occurred all over the country as Bush and Gore dug for more votes. As it was, the digging was only beneficial in Florida. If Florida had not screwed up it's election process so badly, I honestly believe Gore would've won it in the end, and the whole electoral college issue would've been mute.

There was a bigger (if at least another) issue with Florida, and that was election ballot closings. As you probably know, Florida lies in 2 time zones with the peninsula region closing before the pan-handle. The former region being more Democrat and the latter Republican. When the peninsula region closed and results now getting broadcast, showing a win for Gore, it was argued that many in the pan-handle region decided there was no use to go vote, and may have caused a drop in numbers for Bush. Either way, you're right ... Florida was/is a voting nightmare and should change policies ... NOW.

 

[Pookster]

There was a bigger (if at least another) issue with Florida, and that was election ballot closings. As you probably know, Florida lies in 2 time zones with the peninsula region closing before the pan-handle. The former region being more Democrat and the latter Republican. When the peninsula region closed and results now getting broadcast, showing a win for Gore, it was argued that many in the pan-handle region decided there was no use to go vote, and may have caused a drop in numbers for Bush. Either way, you're right ... Florida was/is a voting nightmare and should change policies ... NOW.

I remember that as well, and its a good point. I just don't think people stay home so easily though. There are other State and local elections going on as well which have a more direct influence on their lives than the President. But, some Bush supporters may have stayed home. But then again, some Gore supporters may have as well. I mean, their guy has been declared the winner. Why get off the couch if that's the only election you were interested in to begin with? Stay home and watch the other States results. We'll never really know how that might have affected things. But, it likely did hurt Bush a little more than Gore. Hopefully the election process has changed enough to prevent the same problem from ever reoccurring, but I bet it's still an issue to some degree.