Debate on Electoral College vs Popular Vote
 

Thought this discussion merits its own thread. The discussion started in my Intro thread, but I didn't want a debate on this topics to be lost within an individual forum member's intro thread.

My initial statement was:
I don't particularly like the electoral college system because I think every vote should count and a winner takes all system (for a state's electoral college votes) doesn't lend itself to all votes counting equally. While it's true that this would currently favor Democrats, I'd feel the same even if it currently favored Republicans.

In response, @not insane had some comments in response. Hopefully he doesn't mind his and my initial quotes being the starting point of the discussion, but here's his response to my comment and mine to his:

My greater point was really that I think EVERY vote should count equally in determining who becomes president.

For example, in CA where I live, under the current electoral college system, Republication votes effectively don't count for President. They are counted in terms of tallying the popular vote, but they realistically won't affect where CA's electoral votes will go.

For local propositions or other down ballot races, they do/can matter, but CA is so heavily skewed Democratic, that there's no way for the foreseeable future that it will swing to be a Red state. I would argue that in such a scenario, a CA Republican's presidential vote is rendered effectively meaningless in terms of actual effect on result outcome. Same for NY, MA, etc.

Similarly, the same is true in reverse in heavily skewed Republican states.

I don't know what this all would work out to be from a % standpoint, but a significant % of voters have effectively no say in who will be President with the electoral college system simply due to the state they reside in.

Given that federal policies affect all citizens, this doesn't seem right to me.

And the voters in more equally divided states, esp those with high electoral college counts, have a proportionally huge influence on who will become President. Not because they're wiser, have studied the issues more, or are more open-minded - but simply because they happen to reside in battleground states.

As far as whether the current system is needs to remain as is because that's the way the Constitution framed it, I think we need to realize that the environment was much different back in the 1700's and what was envisioned then as the optimal solution for those times doesn't mean there isn't a better solution today.

Here's one article - just happens to be the first one I found, that covers some of these topics.

https://news.stanford.edu/2012/08/20...ollege-082012/


I'd like to hear both what you, and other members overall, think about this topic.

Let's please try to keep discussion to the topic vs it getting personal. :rolleyes:

Fully concur, but we're stuck with the EC unless the Constitution is amended. That's not happening anytime soon. A similar uneven voter representation exits with the Senate.

Just want to make one distinction. If your vote 'doesn't count' in California because your party is a distinct minority in California, that is basically a districtling problem. States, on a national level, can be considered as voting districts. Of course, unlike congressional districts, that are redrawn every 10 years, state boundaries don't change.

There are two other ways votes are discounted in the electoral college, that are built into the Constitution. That's the minimums: each state gets a minimum of 2 senators and 1 representative no matter how low their population. Giving this minimum to very low population states results in an inflation of low-population state power in the House, the Senate, and the Electoral College. Since the House of Representatives is capped in size, increasing the representation of low population states means decreasing the representation of high population states.

The obvious way to address the Electoral College problem is to do away with it, just adding up all the popular vote at the national level. Now the Republicans of California can rush to the polls, happy in the knowledge that their votes will count to swell their candidate's national total. But as nailer points out, this cannot happen without a constitutional amendment, and since it would require the support of many smaller states that benefit from the current system, it seems very unlikely to happen.

Electoral College vs Popular Vote a remnant of a time of slavery in our country.

To allow states with slaves to have a greater voice over larger population states without.

Still now being used to keep a race in control IMO!

Really should a state like,
@
Wyoming (Population: 572,381)
Vermont (Population: 627,180)

have two Senators each and one and two congressman?

Then


District of Columbia (Population: 711,571)
Zero!


Puerto Rico (Population 2,837,199)

Zero!


Make new states and keep the EC. The republican party will never allow the elimination of the EC!

That is what can be done. Just need majority in each house of congress. The act of admission is Congress exercising a congressional power, the President does not have to sign off, and cannot veto.

Kansas has 6 electoral votes.

All six are Republicans. I bet Trump pulls all 6 again, despite my vote.

Not sure how this benefits Kansas, perhaps donquixote could elaborate.

Kansas's 6 electoral college votes represent 2.2% of the 270 needed to win. With a population of 2.913 million people, Kansas has .88% of the USA pop. of 331 million. So Kansas enjoys about 2.5 times the electoral college clout it should have based purely on population.