Could someone re-explain the logic and use of electoral college

[Oyeve]

Its so ladygaga can run for president.

 

[Vdubchaos]

Here you go OP

http://vimeo.com/52383648

 

[Screech]

There is another reason that is not being considered.

Imagine you have some sort of large disaster....say, i don't know, a hurricane for example.....that makes it difficult for people in a certain part of the country to vote. Imagine the election was decided by national vote instead of EC and the winner was the person who was going to do badly in the parts of the country hit by that hurricane, and he won by a national margin of 50,000 votes.

Would you then say that perhaps the weather decided the election be keeping voting turnout low in those parts of the country?

The EC prevents this from happening (generally.....) but that said I still think the EC is a stupid anachronism. If obama loses the popular vote and wins the EC (reverse of 2000) then I imagine more republican states will seriously consider changing it. Right now the EC favors the less populated, more rural states.....you can figure out from that who generally likes it.

 

[Agent11]

California has a lot of conservatives. If a significant percentage are as apathetic as you then yes, it will stay blue.

The idea of it is to keep some stability and prevent states with large populations from completely dominating smaller states.

If the popular vote was all that mattered the candidates would only care about the largest cities.

 

[Oyeve]

Its really so people cant vote for anyone they choose.

 

[AstroManLuca]

California has a lot of conservatives. If a significant percentage are as apathetic as you then yes, it will stay blue.

The idea of it is to keep some stability and prevent states with large populations from completely dominating smaller states.

If the popular vote was all that mattered the candidates would only care about the largest cities.

As it stands, the candidates only care about the largest cities in a select few states. Seriously, why should the citizens of Ohio basically get to choose the president every election? Why can't we all have a say?

 

[Screech]

As it stands, the candidates only care about the largest cities in a select few states. Seriously, why should the citizens of Ohio basically get to choose the president every election? Why can't we all have a say?

This....if the point was to keep a few locations in the country from repeatedly deciding who gets to be president and dominating the political landscape, the EC does a particularly terrible job.

 

[TheNinja]

California has a lot of conservatives. If a significant percentage are as apathetic as you then yes, it will stay blue.

The idea of it is to keep some stability and prevent states with large populations from completely dominating smaller states.

If the popular vote was all that mattered the candidates would only care about the largest cities.

I can definitely see some truth to that I guess. The candidates would basically campaign in the cities and in high population areas. Nobody is going to care about a small "swing state" anymore.

There has to be some way, a graduated % or something though. The whole winner takes all is having the exact opposite affect. Now they don't campaign or care about highly populated states or certain states that always vote one way or the other. They spend all their time and money in swing states.

A vote in Ohio or Florida is definitely worth more to them than a vote from California.

 

[EagleKeeper]

California has a lot of conservatives. If a significant percentage are as apathetic as you then yes, it will stay blue.

The idea of it is to keep some stability and prevent states with large populations from completely dominating smaller states.

If the popular vote was all that mattered the candidates would only care about the largest cities.

Boston NYC area, Philly DC area
South Florida, Atlanta, Chicago, St Louis, SD, LA, SF would be able to control a large portion of the election if popular vote was used.
the US from the Mississippi to CA would never see a candidate or the advertising $$.

 

[boxleitnerb]

Yeah, it always seems to be about swing states only. They get all the attention, the rest gets little. If the goal of the EC was that attention would be equally distributed between large population centers and small ones, it worked - but in doing so it simply re-created the same problem somewhere else, namely between "normal" states and traditional swing states.

Btw why would it be so bad if there only were a popular vote? How is it fair that smaller states get proportionally more say in the matter? They are smaller, that's a fact and they should deal with it. I don't see a problem with that.

 

[biostud]

The winner takes it all = two candidates and parties.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Yeah, it always seems to be about swing states only. They get all the attention, the rest gets little. If the goal of the EC was that attention would be equally distributed between large population centers and small ones, it worked - but in doing so it simply re-created the same problem somewhere else, namely between "normal" states and traditional swing states.

Btw why would it be so bad if there only were a popular vote? How is it fair that smaller states get proportionally more say in the matter? They are smaller, that's a fact and they should deal with it. I don't see a problem with that.

Bully tactics. the founders forsaw that happening.

States like MD, RI, Del, NH, VT would get overridden by VA, PA, MA, GA, etc
with respect to congress itself (why there are two chambers) and the EC impact of population drowning out the impact/influence of the little guys.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

As it stands, the candidates only care about the largest cities in a select few states. Seriously, why should the citizens of Ohio basically get to choose the president every election? Why can't we all have a say?

If you get rid of the EC, they will still only care about the largest cities. It will just always be the same ones every single time.

At least now, the swing states change.

 

[Todd33]

I don't like the fact that a few states get all the attention and the rest are taken for granted. After 2000 I wanted popular vote, I'm sure it would be more fair.

 

[Anarchist420]

The electoral college can't be abolished because the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means. It's pretty much embedded and hardwired into the Constitution.

Also, a national popular vote would be too costly. I prefer the direct democracy over something representative like the EC, but Jefferson warned us about slim majorities.

If each State legislature had one vote and if the consent of 7/10 of the States were required to elect a president, then it would be less painful than how it is now, but the Constitution doesn't allow for that.

Anyway, Federal Republican govt is a stupid idea because it tries to be a compromise between a direct democracy and a monarchy.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Boston NYC area, Philly DC area
South Florida, Atlanta, Chicago, St Louis, SD, LA, SF would be able to control a large portion of the election if popular vote was used.
the US from the Mississippi to CA would never see a candidate or the advertising $$.

That's already true today. The southern US doesn't see any campaigning (outside of Florida) because all those states are safe for Republicans, just as the pacific northwest and the northeast don't see any because they're safe for Democrats. What's the difference if one particular region becomes the primary focus of the campaign instead of another?

I mean, are you seriously saying that the electoral college prevents certain areas from having too much influence? Have you ignored the fact that the vast majority of campaign events and dollars have been poured into Ohio and Florida?

Bully tactics. the founders forsaw that happening.

States like MD, RI, Del, NH, VT would get overridden by VA, PA, MA, GA, etc
with respect to congress itself (why there are two chambers) and the EC impact of population drowning out the impact/influence of the little guys.

Now this makes perfect sense. For actual legislators, our current system makes perfect sense - proportional representation in the House, equal representation in the Senate. No problem there. But it doesn't translate well to elections.

 

[Agent11]

All the states matter, it's just that these 'battleground' states are less predictable. Hence the attention.

 

[bfdd]

The electoral college is fucked because the "powers that be" restricted the growth of Representatives. We should have something like 10k+ Reps now, which would mean the Electoral College would too better represent the populace. Just saying not all issues with the system are a result of the system itself, but outside interference.

 

[sactoking]

The Electoral College made perfect sense when it was adopted, and it still makes some sense today. You have to remember that, as EagleKeeper said, the founding of the Constitution was actually a fairly vigorous debate between the statists and the federalists. In the end, the United States ended up being a Democratic Republic, meaning it was a collection of individual states with a somewhat weak federal branch.

When it came time to elect the leader of that federal branch, the founders did not see it as 2,500,000 individual citizens electing a leader, they saw it as the citizens of each state choosing who the state wanted. Larger states got marginally more influence than smaller states, but it was accepted that election of the President was done by consensus of the states and not consensus of the citizens.

Fast forward to today and that tenet still holds true: to be elected President you need the majority of influence among the states, regardless of what the individual desires. It's a somewhat collectivist system but it hearkens back to the roots of a more statist society.

If anyone has a problem with the system, say because a certain state is always blue or always red, they need to realize that the system isn't the problem, the people are. If you don't want California to always be blue or Texas red your problem isn't the Electoral College, your problem is that you live in a system where you know the result is determined by the collective will of each state's citizenry and you choose to then reside where your voice is marginalized. If someone in a "lock" state is disenfranchised (in the traditional sense) by the Electoral College it is only because they choose to be.

 

[techs]

If we went by the popular vote it would be enormously tempting for some states to keep a candidate off the ballot. Even a state like California that will go heavily to Obama would have millions of votes for Romney.
By making some b.s. reason or qualification to keep Romney off the ballot one state could change the election.
Its not that far fetched since a couple of states were going to try and keep Obama off thier ballot based on his birth certificate, etc. Those were red states so they wouldn't have affected anything under the electora college, but if you can keep a candidate who would lose your state off the ballot under a popular vote system, you can swing the whole election.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Many people don't realize that for the first N years of the country, people didn't even vote for electors to the electoral college. It was done by state legislatures. That is still technically done even today in many states, they just choose them based on the election returns.

 

[Zxian]

How the Electoral College Works
The Trouble with the Electoral College

CGPGrey's videos are really well explained.

 

[CPA]

The Electoral College made perfect sense when it was adopted, and it still makes some sense today. You have to remember that, as EagleKeeper said, the founding of the Constitution was actually a fairly vigorous debate between the statists and the federalists. In the end, the United States ended up being a Democratic Republic, meaning it was a collection of individual states with a somewhat weak federal branch.

When it came time to elect the leader of that federal branch, the founders did not see it as 2,500,000 individual citizens electing a leader, they saw it as the citizens of each state choosing who the state wanted. Larger states got marginally more influence than smaller states, but it was accepted that election of the President was done by consensus of the states and not consensus of the citizens.

Fast forward to today and that tenet still holds true: to be elected President you need the majority of influence among the states, regardless of what the individual desires. It's a somewhat collectivist system but it hearkens back to the roots of a more statist society.

If anyone has a problem with the system, say because a certain state is always blue or always red, they need to realize that the system isn't the problem, the people are. If you don't want California to always be blue or Texas red your problem isn't the Electoral College, your problem is that you live in a system where you know the result is determined by the collective will of each state's citizenry and you choose to then reside where your voice is marginalized. If someone in a "lock" state is disenfranchised (in the traditional sense) by the Electoral College it is only because they choose to be.

This...completely. Those arguing for a popular vote are akin to the Federalists in the 1700's, believing in a strong Federal government and weak state governments. There is a reason why it's called "United States of America" and not just "America".

 

[soulcougher73]

nm

 

[soulcougher73]

That's not a problem with the EC per se, rather with your state's winner take all way of appointing it's electoral votes. Take it up with them.

I agree proportional voting of EC is far superior than the current form, but if you do proportional voting you may as well just eliminate the middle man "EC" and go straight popular. Its boils down to filling the same function. Popular vote and proportional voting of EC are the same thing basically.