The End of the Electoral College

[Enki]

672030 People per Elector in California
181423 People per Elector in Wyoming

Very fair, very balanced. A citizen of Wyoming has 3.5 votes for every one vote in California.

Tinker, the EC has overturned the popular vote, what, 3 times in our history?

Where is the fire?

Well...it happened in my lifetime and lead to some really absolutely horrible things that would not have happened had it been the guy who actually won the popular vote.

[crashtech]

No, it's a state level position. So they should obviously be chosen by state popular vote.

But the argument can be made that Senators of other states than my own affect my life even more than the POTUS. Why should a Senator from a podunk state have this kind of disproportionate power?

Because it's a state level position. The more reasonable argument would be to ask if it truly is fair to have as many Senators in small states as large ones. Fundamentally it really isn't, and the vast numbers of people in the rural areas that are pushed out of state and national politics in large states that vastly outnumber the number of people who are enfranchised in rural small states are really the ones who get the shaft ultimately.

US Senator is not a "state level position."

If you think it's not fair to have 2 Senators per state, you have a fundamental problem with our bicameral system. A unicameral body with strictly population proportional representation would probably be more suited to what you think is just.

I happen to disagree, because I still believe in (wish for, if you will) a modicum of state sovereignty and independence from federal authority. Having 2 Senators per state, and skewing the number of Electors to give sparsely populated states a bit more of a say in who is POTUS both serve this end.

in the past, you have advocated decentralization of power. But moving towards a strictly population based means of electing the POTUS and discounting the value of our bicameral system can only serve to help cement the supremacy of a monolithic federal power, where states are just a vestige, perhaps not even needing Governors anymore.

[Enki]

US Senator is not a "state level position."

Yes it is. It represents one whole state. I know what your criticism means and yes, in terms of the job it's Federal. In terms of how it's elected and who it is meant to represent it's a statewide race.

If you think it's not fair to have 2 Senators per state, you have a fundamental problem with our bicameral system. A unicameral body with strictly population proportional representation would probably be more suited to what you think is just.

It's not something I will ever pick a fight about, but it's unfair objectively. It is not my opinion that it's unfair. It is the opinion of anyone who can do long division. Has nothing at all to do with ideology, it makes one person's vote worth more than another's based upon where they live.

I happen to disagree, because I still believe in (wish for, if you will) a modicum of state sovereignty and independence from federal authority. Having 2 Senators per state, and skewing the number of Electors to give sparsely populated states a bit more of a say in who is POTUS both serve this end.

I don't think it does that at all. What offices do you think sold out states rights over the years if not Congress and the Presidency?

in the past, you have advocated decentralization of power. But moving towards a strictly population based means of electing the POTUS and discounting the value of our bicameral system can only serve to help cement the supremacy of a monolithic federal power, where states are just a vestige, perhaps not even needing Governors anymore.

Moot point considering our current system allows a moneyed elite to pick the choices before we even vote. I think you underestimate how much that has already occurred. I think that every state should be able to choose how they elect the President, and I hope that enough states to take 270 electors enact this measure.

Pretty much everything that you've said the electoral college was designed to do, it fails to do.

[crashtech]

But at least it maintains a principle, and I believe principles are important. If the system is broken, it's not because of the Electoral College.

The principle of a strict popular vote for POTUS without a nod to the sovereignty of individual states is the tyranny of the majority.

[crashtech]

You know, if we overhauled the system I would go the other way with POTUS selection, and have each State legislature cast one vote for President, with 26 votes to win.

[Enki]

But at least it maintains a principle, and I believe principles are important. If the system is broken, it's not because of the Electoral College.

The system is broken because of a million tiny little fractures. That's what corruption is. The system isn't broken because Eric Cantor shorted the dollar. The system isn't broken because the Bush administration fudged intelligence to make the picture look like what they thought it should look like. The system isn't broken because Barack Obama used a ballot challenge to knock both challengers off the ballot in his first race for state office that he won. The system isn't broken because the CIA lets drugs come into this country in order to gather intel. The system isn't broken because the FBI allows undercover agents to sleep with activists and attempt to radicalize them. The system isn't broken because old ladies on fixed incomes lose their homes to asset forfeiture when their grandson gets caught selling dope. The system isn't broken because banks got trillions of dollars in bailouts and then went on to give record bonuses and initiate record foreclosures leaving 6 empty houses for every single homeless person. It is not broken because primaries and mid-term elections have on average a 12% voter turnout.

It's not broken because of ANY of those things. It is broken because of ALL of those things.

The principle of a strict popular vote for POTUS without a nod to the sovereignty of individual states is the tyranny of the majority.

Wake up. We already live under a tyranny of the majority, but even if we had a popular vote for the POTUS, it still wouldn't qualify as such, that's not what Tyranny of the Majority means. Tyranny of the Majority refers to Democracy where people have the power to vote themselves rights and vote away the rights of others. Like allowing pot smokers to be labelled as felons and have their voting rights taken away meanwhile the census counts prisoners as residents in a district thus giving districts with prisoners in them more smaller districts with fewer people for the same offices. That is the tyranny of the majority. Defense of Marriage Act. That is the tyranny of the majority. Voting for one single office doesn't even qualify.

But, even still, the electoral college doesn't favor small states, it relegates them to irrelevancy while making the big swing-states be the deciding factor in all elections.

[Mr. Perfect]

672030 People per Elector in California
181423 People per Elector in Wyoming

Very fair, very balanced. A citizen of Wyoming has 3.5 votes for every one vote in California.

Tinker, the EC has overturned the popular vote, what, 3 times in our history?

Where is the fire?

Well...it happened in my lifetime and lead to some really absolutely horrible things that would not have happened had it been the guy who actually won the popular vote.

If there had been no EC Bush would have won anyway by pursuing a different electoral strategy. Al Gore would have been worse than Bush.

[Mr. Perfect]

When those rules were devised they never imagined that one state would outnumber another by 35m people.

Sure they did. That's why they gave bigger states more votes. Works great.

Florida has near as many people as the colonies at the devising of the Constitution.

So what.

That's because you don't understand politics. They raise lots of money from rich urban liberal elites (both parties) in order to buy really fancy psychologists and ad men who know exactly what buttons to press and what buzzwords to say in order to get rural people in rural states to vote for a big city candidate like Mitt Romney (Boston), George W. Bush(DC/Boston/New Haven/Austin), George HW Bush(New Haven/DC), Ronald Reagan(LA), Richard Nixon(LA)...etc...etc...

Sounds good to me.

Of course they aren't laughing, they don't know how badly they are getting shut out of the vote under the current system. In all likelihood they probably believe it actually protects them. They don't see the information that I provide. And the only person who does, who cares and likely participates in politics to some degree, doesn't understand it most of the time.

So when a Wyoming voter counts for what nearly 4 votes (your information) compared to one vote for a Californian, explain how the WY voter is getting shut out.

I'm just going on the information you provide.

[crashtech]

Enki, none of the concerns you mention above would be addressed by changing the method of electing the President.

Why don't we just be honest. Right now, so-called "Red States," which encompass a huge geographical area, but are sparsely populated, enjoy a slight advantage in the selection of the POTUS. Conservatives are generally OK with this, and those who oppose conservatives are not.

I have to admit that supporters of the Electoral College are probably on the losing end, not because its a bad system, but because the average person doesn't understand how it works or even why it exists at all.

[Enki]

If there had been no EC Bush would have won anyway by pursuing a different electoral strategy. Al Gore would have been worse than Bush.

He wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq.

[Enki]

So when a Wyoming voter counts for what nearly 4 votes (your information) compared to one vote for a Californian, explain how the WY voter is getting shut out.

I'm just going on the information you provide.

Wyoming is counterbalanced against New York and California. Its vote can be relied upon by one party, therefore neither party panders to Wyoming. The states that GET things from candidates are the big states and the swing states.

[Enki]

Enki, none of the concerns you mention above would be addressed by changing the method of electing the President.

Why don't we just be honest. Right now, so-called "Red States," which encompass a huge geographical area, but are sparsely populated, enjoy a slight advantage in the selection of the POTUS. Conservatives are generally OK with this, and those who oppose conservatives are not.

Cart before the horse. What makes one a 'Democrat' fundamentally is if they believe in Democracy. It's not about supporting it because you oppose Conservatives, its because you support Democracy, and you are opposed to Conservatives because Conservatives are opposed to Democracy. And I mean putting a Republic vs Democracy, not saying Conservatives are fascists or any of that stuff.

I have to admit that supporters of the Electoral College are probably on the losing end, not because its a bad system, but because the average person doesn't understand how it works or even why it exists at all.

The people making the legislation to kill it are making that legislation largely without the general population knowing. Not because they are keeping it a secret, but because the general population makes no effort to educate themselves. So the people instituting these changes are quite aware of what the Electoral College does and seek to change it.

[crashtech]

Enki, do opponents of the Electoral College also believe that the bicameral system as implemented is a bad thing?

[Ibrahim]

I guess some people have forgotten what "republic" means.

What do you think "republic" means?

It doesn't mean direct democracy, thank goodness.

Proportional representation would still be representative democracy, not direct democracy.

[Mr. Perfect]

If there had been no EC Bush would have won anyway by pursuing a different electoral strategy. Al Gore would have been worse than Bush.

He wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq.

I think anyone except Nader or Buchanan would have gone to war in Iraq.

[Mr. Perfect]

So when a Wyoming voter counts for what nearly 4 votes (your information) compared to one vote for a Californian, explain how the WY voter is getting shut out.

I'm just going on the information you provide.

Wyoming is counterbalanced against New York and California. Its vote can be relied upon by one party, therefore neither party panders to Wyoming. The states that GET things from candidates are the big states and the swing states.

That's all fine. The EC was not set up to be able to shake down the POTUS. It's just designed so that states like CA can't dump their toxic waste into Montana.

It works great. Montanans and swing states love the EC. It will therefore never change.

[Mr. Perfect]

Cart before the horse. What makes one a 'Democrat' fundamentally is if they believe in Democracy.

The party that devised the Super Delegate system? Not even wrong.

The people making the legislation to kill it are making that legislation largely without the general population knowing. Not because they are keeping it a secret, but because the general population makes no effort to educate themselves. So the people instituting these changes are quite aware of what the Electoral College does and seek to change it.

Why don't you list the states doing it and maybe we can see if a pattern emerges.

[Zack Morris]

It's just designed so that states like CA can't dump their toxic waste into Montana.

A lot of things didn't exist when the EC was designed, among them toxic waste, a standing army, and telecommunications.

It works great. Montanans and swing states love the EC. It will therefore never change.

Swing states don't care (and I'm pretty sure many of them allot their votes to the winner of the popular vote anyway) and more populous states aren't going to let Montana chip away at their influence. Montana could avoid toxic waste by growing their economy, improving services and infrastructure, and attracting more people to live there.

[Mr. Perfect]

Whatever you say. Just spend lots of time, effort and money at this particular cause.

And BTW, having your individual rights depend on having to do this that or the other thing instead of being self-evident is not consistent with American philosophy. Our rights are not earned from the state, they are guaranteed by the state regardless.

[Zack Morris]

And BTW, having your individual rights depend on having to do this that or the other thing instead of being self-evident is not consistent with American philosophy. Our rights are not earned from the state, they are guaranteed by the state regardless.

The Electoral College is not a 'self-evident right', nor are arbitrary administrative divisions such as states. You and your neighbors do not have any natural right to form arbitrarily small local governments that require special legislative safeguards at the expense of larger populations.

[Mr. Perfect]

And BTW, having your individual rights depend on having to do this that or the other thing instead of being self-evident is not consistent with American philosophy. Our rights are not earned from the state, they are guaranteed by the state regardless.

The Electoral College is not a 'self-evident right', nor are arbitrary administrative divisions such as states. You and your neighbors do not have any natural right to form arbitrarily small local governments that require special legislative safeguards at the expense of larger populations.

I think you misunderstood, in American political philosophy, rights are indeed self evident, and the protection of those rights is the purpose of the government. These objectives underpin the mechanisms of the US government, specifically in the design of the Senate and the Electoral College.

By your own words you would undo these protections and would be happy to have Montanans be subject to abuse by other states unless they can grow economically to the point that they can defend themselves, which is profoundly un-American. The whole intent of the Constitution is to stop people like you, and I am grateful to God that it does.

[Zack Morris]

And BTW, having your individual rights depend on having to do this that or the other thing instead of being self-evident is not consistent with American philosophy. Our rights are not earned from the state, they are guaranteed by the state regardless.

The Electoral College is not a 'self-evident right', nor are arbitrary administrative divisions such as states. You and your neighbors do not have any natural right to form arbitrarily small local governments that require special legislative safeguards at the expense of larger populations.

I think you misunderstood, in American political philosophy, rights are indeed self evident, and the protection of those rights is the purpose of the government. These objectives underpin the mechanisms of the US government, specifically in the design of the Senate and the Electoral College.

By your own words you would undo these protections and would be happy to have Montanans be subject to abuse by other states unless they can grow economically to the point that they can defend themselves, which is profoundly un-American. The whole intent of the Constitution is to stop people like you, and I am grateful to God that it does.

The distinction between Montanans, Washingtonians, and Californians are completely artificial. During the drafting of the Constitution, such distinctions still had some meaning.

[Mr. Perfect]

Not according to Montanans, Washingtonians and Californians.

Washingtonians hate California people it is part of their identity. And on and on.

Anyway, states have competing interests which translates down to the rights of individuals in the weaker states which need protecting,. and the EC does it's part.

Liberals should like the EC, it is sort of affirmative action in a sense. Looking out for minorities. But I guess that has real limits because liberals only say that they don't actually believe it unless it has political benefit.

[Zack Morris]

Not according to Montanans, Washingtonians and Californians.

Washingtonians hate California people it is part of their identity. And on and on.

An enormous amount of people in Washington (and Nevada, and Oregon, and Arizona, and even Idaho) are from California.

Anyway, states have competing interests which translates down to the rights of individuals in the weaker states which need protecting,. and the EC does it's part.

And laborers have competing interests with capitalists, which translates down to the rights of individuals with weaker bargaining positions which need protecting.

Montanans and Californians still have the same rights.

Liberals should like the EC, it is sort of affirmative action in a sense. Looking out for minorities. But I guess that has real limits because liberals only say that they don't actually believe it unless it has political benefit.

That doesn't sound exclusively liberal to me.

[Mr. Perfect]

An enormous amount of people in Washington (and Nevada, and Oregon, and Arizona, and even Idaho) are from California.

And the people from those states hate them.

And laborers have competing interests with capitalists, which translates down to the rights of individuals with weaker bargaining positions which need protecting.

And they are.

Montanans and Californians still have the same rights.

Thanks in part to the EC. Thank you founders. And God.

That doesn't sound exclusively liberal to me.

Either way.