Debate on Electoral College vs Popular Vote

[bryan]

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:

Originally Posted by Not Insane

BTW, I noticed you mentioned the concept of "winner take all". I just thought I'd point out that all democratic elections are "winner take all". The selection of a president is only democratic in how each state chooses which candidate it will support. After that, the fifty states choose, "democratically" through their representatives (the electors) which candidate their state will vote for. The weight of their vote depends on the population of their state (number of congressmen) plus two more (matching two senators). It is why we are called a republic.

And if we elected a president today based on the popular vote, three counties would pretty much select our president. LA, COOK (Illinois) and New York.

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.