Electoral College

[kallend 1,651]

Quite possible that one candidate will get more popular votes while the other wins the college.


The original purpose was to prevent the masses from electing someone the elites didn't like (pretty clear from the writings at the time).

Then it was rationalized as giving more clout to the less populous states. Clearly that no longer works - how much attention have the candidates given to Wyoming, Alaska and Rhode Island? They're just about invisible in this election.

So? Has the Electoral College outlived its usefulness?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[livendive 8]

I think we should go to a straight popular vote. The electoral college makes some people's votes count for more than other's.

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Has the Electoral College outlived its usefulness?

Yes.

[quade 3]

Quote

I think we should go to a straight popular vote. The electoral college makes some people's votes count for more than other's.

Agreed.

I think the only people who'd really put up a fight are the media companies in the swing states. For them, election years are money in the bank. This year even more so than most.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I think the only people who'd really put up a fight are the media companies in the swing states. For them, election years are money in the bank. This year even more so than most.

The small affiliiates might, but the parent companies would love the change since that would mean more business in the largest DMAs like LA, NYC, Houston, Chicago where little advertizing is done.

Given that we're trying to solve a problem that only occurred once in over a century, maybe we should think about not fixing things that aren't broken. Lots of unintended and unpredictable consequences, along with the obvious ones.

For example, people still think that term limits are the solution, not the cause of problems with state governments.

[headoverheels 291]

Quote

Quite possible that one candidate will get more popular votes while the other wins the college.


The original purpose was to prevent the masses from electing someone the elites didn't like (pretty clear from the writings at the time).

Then it was rationalized as giving more clout to the less populous states. Clearly that no longer works - how much attention have the candidates given to Wyoming, Alaska and Rhode Island? They're just about invisible in this election.

So? Has the Electoral College outlived its usefulness?

If it were by the popular vote this time, then Sandy could flip the result because of lower turn out in those blue states (and lower mail-in for those that do that). Sandy isn't as likely to flip the Electoral votes for those states as it is to just decrease total votes.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

The electoral college makes some people's votes count for more than other's.

I keep hearing about an election in Ohio. But I am a little confused why everyone else isn't voting.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quite possible that one candidate will get more popular votes while the other wins the college.

So? Has the Electoral College outlived its usefulness?

I suspect most will only cry foul if it flips against their guy. That said, I do appreciate those here that answered the question before the election.


For me - I don't care if it's electoral or popular, only that the rules are known ahead of time and that people that complain about it after the fact are just being children.

Tot he topic, I still think the rationale behind it remains sound, but it's just as arbitrary as any other accounting.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

Quite possible that one candidate will get more popular votes while the other wins the college.

So? Has the Electoral College outlived its usefulness?

I suspect most will only cry foul if it flips against their guy.

Pretty much this. Many folks in the dominant party of non-swing states will find reasons to complain about why going with the popular vote is unfair, inferior, etc.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I think we should go to a straight popular vote. The electoral college makes some people's votes count for more than other's.

Do you think that the World Series should be determined by a 7 game series and the team with the most runs wins? in the 2004 ALCS the Yankees scored 45 runs in that 7 game series, and Boston scored only 41. But Boston won 4 games to the Yankees' three. Isn't that unfair?

The Electoral College is intended to act much like the Congress. But for it, the population centers can regularly hose every place else. A brought support is necessary to win the electoral vote.

Still - to win a presidential election, the minimum number of states needed to be won is 11. A candidate needs to pick up 270 electoral votes.
California -55
Texas-38
Florida -29
New York-29
Pennsylvania-20
Illinois-20
Ohio-18
Michigan-16
Georgia-16
North Carolina-15
New Jersey-14

That's 270 votes. A candidate could win 39 states and Washington DC and STILL lose the election.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[livendive 8]

Population centers don't get to vote, people do. Obviously populations centers will get more attention, due to the whole "bang for buck", but Romney is currently close to proving that a popular vote can be won without the big, traditionally (D) cities.

It's a natural order of progression. Districts elect their representatives, states elect their senators, and the nation elects its President. So if you want to draw a sports analogy, I'd say that the way the World Series goes is irrelevant. Win some primaries and advance, win enough of them you go to the Super Bowl, a winner takes all match-up.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Population centers don't get to vote, people do.

Right. but population centers have different interests. 3 million people in 1000 square miles who want water will have more control over water than 1 million people in 100,000 square miles. The electoral college recognizes this.

In a sense, the election is about playing 51 games on one day, all of which with different weights.

I myself do not want to see the rules of the game changed.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Population centers don't get to vote, people do.

Right. but population centers have different interests. 3 million people in 1000 square miles who want water will have more control over water than 1 million people in 100,000 square miles. The electoral college recognizes this.

In a sense, the election is about playing 51 games on one day, all of which with different weights.

I myself do not want to see the rules of the game changed.

The separation of powers would prevent such an abuse as you're describing. If a President were to try and cater just to the cities, he'd never get anything through the house or senate. I just think the concept of states electing the President is silly, he's representing the nation. If we want to keep some state control over the process, give each state 1 primary vote, and 6 months before the general election, states start having primaries at a rate of 1 per day, in a random order. If this year's lineup is heavy in the middle of the country for the first half, maybe Santorum gets enough momentum to win the nomination. If it's in the south, maybe Gingrich. But every state would get to nominate one candidate for each party, and the top candidates from each party would face off for a popular vote.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

the President is silly, he's representing the nation.

no - the definition is closest to being the chief executive of a collection of independent states

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

the President is silly, he's representing the nation.

no - the definition is closest to being the chief executive of a collection of independent states

He's selected by millions of shareholders, some of whom get to vote more "loudly" than others. I think the first part is cool, just get rid of the bullhorns.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[wmw999 2,150]

That description better fits the EU than the USA. The states are semi-independent, but have given up far more autonomy than the EU states have, both legally/politically, as well as socially. Most Americans understand each other, and have very similar social and cultural contexts with which to interpret actions and intentions. That's just not the same where the degree of independence is greater.

A valid question is whether we've gone too far in melding the states; it's easier for most of them, particularly with the greater mobility and communications of now vs. 100 years ago.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

A valid question is whether we've gone too far in melding the states;

I think that's exactly the debate that's been going on for the last 100 years or so. All else can just be shown as symptoms of the that debate.

Certainly the founders would say we've absolutely gone too far. At least from the original intent. But, IMHO, that's a moot point in the debate in today's context other than would we agree on not with the original intent.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[wmw999 2,150]

The thing is that social and cultural melding is going on all the time, especially with the advent of reasonable mass communications, the internet, and global brands. That's going to blur other boundaries more and more.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The thing is that social and cultural melding is going on all the time, especially with the advent of reasonable mass communications, the internet, and global brands. That's going to blur other boundaries more and more.

Wendy P.

but 'blurring the boundaries' does not have to result in giving up the right of self determination - it's supposed to result in more understanding and respect for others to have that very thing

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

That description better fits the EU than the USA.

I wouldn't even start to compare the EU of today vs the original intent of the founders from over 200 years ago. The US was about independence, the EU is about dependence and social/fiscal leverage.

it's a totally different goal

Quote

The states are semi-independent, but have given up far more autonomy

'given up' - or had it wrest from, legislated away, or blackmailed$$$ from them?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

The separation of powers would prevent such an abuse as you're describing. If a President were to try and cater just to the cities, he'd never get anything through the house or senate. I just think the concept of states electing the President is silly, he's representing the nation. If we want to keep some state control over the process, give each state 1 primary vote, and 6 months before the general election, states start having primaries at a rate of 1 per day, in a random order. If this year's lineup is heavy in the middle of the country for the first half, maybe Santorum gets enough momentum to win the nomination. If it's in the south, maybe Gingrich. But every state would get to nominate one candidate for each party, and the top candidates from each party would face off for a popular vote.

Blues,
Dave

Why in the world would we want the federal government more involved in how the political parties (which are private entities) choose their candidates? We need to remove government from the nominating process, not increase their control.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

The separation of powers would prevent such an abuse as you're describing. If a President were to try and cater just to the cities, he'd never get anything through the house or senate.

Really? The house is strictly rep by pop. I think that means there will be many more reps representing urban and sub-urban voters than rural ones.
These 2000 numbers indicate almost 70% of people live in urban areas of 50,000 or more with most in communities of 200,00 or more. All indications are that concentration has increased since 2000.
Although some senators will come from largely rural states, Alaska, Wyoming and Montana just aren't going to rule the day very often.

[livendive 8]

I honestly couldn't give two shits about political parties. I think their affect on our governance is FAR more negative than positive. I was simply throwing out a back of napkin possibility for maintaining a "state" voice in presidential elections, even though it's clear that it's the populations opinion that is being solicited.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

The separation of powers would prevent such an abuse as you're describing. If a President were to try and cater just to the cities, he'd never get anything through the house or senate.

Really? The house is strictly rep by pop. I think that means there will be many more reps representing urban and sub-urban voters than rural ones.
These 2000 numbers indicate almost 70% of people live in urban areas of 50,000 or more with most in communities of 200,00 or more. All indications are that concentration has increased since 2000.
Although some senators will come from largely rural states, Alaska, Wyoming and Montana just aren't going to rule the day very often.

I'm fine with 70% of the population having 70% of the say, and the whole middle of the country would beg to differ with your assertion that Alaska, Wyomning, and Montana would stand along. A President elected by popular vote is no more or less likely to ignore rural voters than current Presidents are to ignore the states they are sure to wine. Why do you think its ok for California, New York, Texas, and the Bible Belt to be completely ignored in Presidential elections now? That's a much larger percentage of the population that apparently doesn't matter to EC-advocates.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Why do you think its ok for California, New York, Texas, and the Bible Belt to be completely ignored in Presidential elections now?

were you able to write that with a straight face?

California -55
Texas-38
New York-29


the states that already are very partisan? If they want more attention, all they have to do is choose to issue electoral votes in a proportional fashion (and realize it's none of their business if other states choose not to)


seriously - each state gets to choose how they use their electoral votes - it's not required to be winner take all - so complaining about it being a national issue is silly - each person has the ability to lobby their individual state for a change

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants