The official "Electoral College is outdated" thread

[Streck-Fu]

But what worked for them then isn't necessarily what works now.

What would be the realistic outcome from starting over now? With, seemingly, far more people concerned about their own interests at the expense of maximizing the protection of individual liberty, how can any new document be created that comes close what the Constitution provides?

The issue is not the Constitution itself but most of the people electing legislators that ignore the defined limited powers.

 

[T.Lex]

Oh, with today's politicians? Moral entropy has ruined any possibility of later politicians being better than earlier ones. But that doesn't mean what the earlier ones created is ideal for all times.

Exactly, there's a process to amend it (which, arguably, we have already done too many times).

What we have works.

What's the argument that it doesn't work?

 

[jamil]

What would be the realistic outcome from starting over now? With, seemingly, far more people concerned about their own interests at the expense of maximizing the protection of individual liberty, how can any new document be created that comes close what the Constitution provides?

The issue is not the Constitution itself but most of the people electing legislators that ignore the defined limited powers.

I'm certainly not advocating starting over now. That's unrealistic, short of some catastrophe that removes the ruling class from power altogether. And I'm not a doomsday prepper, so I doubt that will happen anyway.

I'm advocating we make some tweaks. I'm okay with a proportional EC that gives a little more weight to votes from rural states. And we might as well get rid of the person electors and just make it automatic. It is that way in actual operation anyway.

 

[cosermann]

. . . What's the argument that it doesn't work?

From the "D" perspective, their candidate's loss is prima facie evidence that it doesn't work! LOL.

 

[jamil]

Exactly, there's a process to amend it (which, arguably, we have already done too many times).

What we have works.

What's the argument that it doesn't work?

What's the argument that what doesn't work? The constitution? Well, it worked for a long time. But it is ignored when it really matters. it's paid lip service to by politicians who want to virtue signal their patriotism or pretend that what their doing is actually legal.

 

[RMC]

The United States is not a democracy and never has been. It's a republic that invokes elements of a democracy. To rely on popular vote only would essentially screw rural America. It's bad enough as it is for folks in 1-horse towns that have to pay the same Federal tax rates as the people in Los Angeles or New York but receive a fraction of the benefits if any. How fair would it be if the residents of the top 10 major cities dictated hunting or gun legislation for everyone in the Midwest and Alaska. What happens to all the cultures and traditions that are endemic to specific communities? The Electoral College may not be the best system to give representation to all but I haven't heard anyone suggest a better system. Perhaps we never should have given the Federal Government so much control over our lives. Should our politicians really be spending so much time on abortion and gay issues. I think more authority and responsibilities need to be returned to the individual States and the people within them.

 

[jamil]

From the "D" perspective, their candidate's loss is prima facie evidence that it doesn't work! LOL.

If Hillary had lost the popular vote but won the EC, many would play musical chairs on their opinions about the EC.

 

[T.Lex]

What's the argument that what doesn't work? The constitution?

Ok, captain literal.

No, the Electoral College. What's the argument that the EC doesn't work.

In other words, what do we want to see? More power in rural areas? Objectively, what makes that better?

 

[cosermann]

If Hillary had lost the popular vote but won the EC, many would play musical chairs on their opinions about the EC.

And neither is a valid argument that it doesn't work. Merely sour grapes.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

If Hillary had lost the popular vote but won the EC, many would play musical chairs on their opinions about the EC.

Politicians, maybe... hardcore Trump followers... probably.

I'm pretty firm in my belief that a pop-vote election and an EC election are two very different beasts. And until we've had and experienced a pop-vote election... there's no educated argument to be made.

 

[Streck-Fu]

Revisting post #16:

First, eliminate the two-party system. Not easy with the current government intwined primary system we have now. So that needs to change such that the system doesn't ensure a logical conclusion of just two parties fighting it out for power every election.

So you create another party or two out of thin air? We already have the Green Party, Libertarian Party, and Socialist Party, etc. What do you plan to change in particular?

 

[indyblue]

This paper explains in relatively simple terms why the EC is a good idea:

https://www.monticellocollege.org/sites/default/files/files/math_against_tyranny.pdf

Some good excerpts:

The same logic that governs our electoral system, he saw, also applies to many sports--which Americans do, intuitively, understand. In baseball’s World Series, for example, the team that scores the most runs overall is like a candidate who gets the most votes. But to become champion, that team must win the most games. In 1960, during a World Series as nail-bitingly close as that year’s presidential battle between Kennedy and Nixon, the New York Yankees, with the awesome slugging combination of Mickey Mantle, Roger Maris, and Bill "Moose" Skowron, scored more than twice as many total runs as the Pittsburgh Pirates, 55 to 27. Yet the Yankees lost the series, four games to three. Even Natapoff, who grew up in the shadow of Yankee Stadium, conceded that Pittsburgh deserved to win. "Nobody walked away saying it was unfair," he says.

Runs must be grouped in a way that wins games, just as popular votes must be grouped in a way that wins states. The Yankees won three blowouts (16-3, 10-0, 12-0), but they couldn’t come up with the runs they needed in the other four games, which were close. "And that’s exactly how Cleveland lost the series of 1888," Natapoff continues. "Grover Cleveland. He lost the five largest states by a close margin, though he carried Texas, which was a thinly populated state then, by a large margin. So he scored more runs, but he lost the five biggies." And that was fair, too. In sports, we accept that a true champion should be more consistent than the 1960 Yankees. A champion should be able to win at least some of the tough, close contests by every means available--bunting, stealing, brilliant pitching, dazzling plays in the field--and not just smack home runs against second-best pitchers. A presidential candidate worthy of office, by the same logic, should have broad appeal across the whole nation, and not just play strongly on a single issue to isolated blocs of voters.

. . .

A well-designed electoral system might include obstacles to thwart an overbearing majority. But direct, national voting has none. Under raw voting, a candidate has every incentive to woo only the largest bloc-- say, Serbs in Yugoslavia. If a Serb party wins national power, minorities have no prospect of throwing them out; 49 percent will never beat 51 percent. Knowing this, the majority can do as it pleases (lacking other effective checks and balances). But in a districted election, no one becomes president without winning a large number of districts, or "states"- -say, two of the following three: Serbia, Bosnia, and Croatia. Candidates thus have an incentive to campaign for non-Serb votes in at least some of those states and to tone down extreme positions--in short, to make elections less risky events for the losers.

 

[T.Lex]

Politicians, maybe... hardcore Trump followers... probably.

I'm pretty firm in my belief that a pop-vote election and an EC election are two very different beasts. And until we've had and experienced a pop-vote election... there's no educated argument to be made.

Well, there are plenty of pop-vote elections in the US to draw conclusions from.

Pence. Brainard. Pelosi.

No particular order, of course.

 

[chipbennett]

The power of the states has been eroded and needs to be returned. Not only do we need to keep the EC, we need to repeal the 17th Amendment.

Exactly this. So much, this.

 

[Streck-Fu]

If Hillary had lost the popular vote but won the EC, many would play musical chairs on their opinions about the EC.

While I posted examples of heavy liberal press supporting the EC in 2012 and now calling it a relic of racism and sexism in 2016, I can't find, so far, any conservative press that caleld for the elimination of the EC in 2008 or 2012. Blogs don't count.

 

[jamil]

The United States is not a democracy and never has been. It's a republic that invokes elements of a democracy. To rely on popular vote only would essentially screw rural America. It's bad enough as it is for folks in 1-horse towns that have to pay the same Federal tax rates as the people in Los Angeles or New York but receive a fraction of the benefits if any. How fair would it be if the residents of the top 10 major cities dictated hunting or gun legislation for everyone in the Midwest and Alaska. What happens to all the cultures and traditions that are endemic to specific communities? The Electoral College may not be the best system to give representing to all but I haven't heard anyone suggest a better system. Perhaps we never should have given the Federal Government so much control over our lives. Should our politicians really be spending so much time on abortion and gay issues. I think more authority and responsibilities need to be returned to the individual States and the people within them.

All right. Once again. The EC is not what makes the US a republic. If the US went to a popular vote for President, it would not cease being a republic. And by me pointing that out, I am not advocating to go to a straight popular vote. I've described the changes I would make to the EC.

That said, the issues politicians are spending time on are the things they think will get them reelected. They create wedge issues to divide people and drive them to vote against those awful monsters who want to do the opposite. Our political system has become a perpetual power machine.

 

[hoosierdoc]

I used to think the EC was flawed. Kind of see how it works now. I think we should still keep electorates, but each county gets 1 that is bound to the vote of the people. alas, i don't think that would fly in the sanctuary cities.

CA would make 9984 counties

 

[T.Lex]

Our political system has become a perpetual power machine.

They all are.

Are you proposing a compulsory service system for "elected" office?

 

[chipbennett]

The electoral college will should stay. I'm ok with it as it is. When an election awards a presidency to a guy who is miliions of votes behind in the popular vote, then it should be revisited. Several hundred thousands across multiple states, I'm ok with.

This misses the point. States elect the President, not the population at-large; because we are a Republic of sovereign States, not a Democracy.

 

[chipbennett]

That's actually my point. If it were a direct democracy, policy would be chosen by a consensus of the people. The president and congress works together to determine policy. The resulting policies end up being often different from what they'd have been if they were directly chosen. After Sandy Hook, do you think that a direct democracy would have given us more or the same or fewer gun control laws? We escaped that because we lobbied our representatives, some of whom represented folks from the other side of the isle.

So yes, a republic does indeed protect us from the mob rule of direct democracy. And as further protection from bad policies, we have the other checks and balances, for what they're worth.

You're still missing the point. We are not a Representative Democracy of 350 million people, we are a Republic of 50 sovereign States.