Hillary says it's time to eliminate the Electoral College

[Alpha One Seven]

I wanted to make fun of you but I have a list too.

That makes no sense at all, but I don't expect it to.

 

[jackstar7]

I wanted to make fun of you but I have a list too.

It's all about does your list improve signal:noise? Or just serve to preserve your bubble?

I don't list anyone for holding different opinions than mine. I just list people who are impervious to facts.

I also know that "bad" language doesn't hold any correlation to intellect, but I'm sure you know that, too.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Your concerns will receive all the attention they deserve. Oh, and I noticed that the repeal of Obamacare is going down for the third time not to mention that Trump's cabinet will go down on him in a heartbeat...

Yes and I have to admit i'm kind of surprised with the edge Republicans have in the Senate. It looks like we'll have to wait till 2018 and get 4-6 more Republican Senators in place before they change the filibuster rule to pass it at a later time. Also looks like McCain won't be voting in 2019 from his own description of his prognosis.
https://www.salon.com/2017/09/25/john-mccain-says-his-cancer-prognosis-is-very-poor/

 

[Muse]

Hey, I said the same thing in a thread I started shortly after the election. Did she finally find it?

 

[Muse]

1 person 1 vote for the president.

Not 1 Montana Vote, 0.7 California Votes for president.

The electoral college has allowed minority rule twice in the last 16 years. It's time to go.

The political minority doesn't need special treatment. They should pull themselves up by their bootstraps like the rest of us if they want to win the vote.

Actually it's worse than that. The senate is severely weighted toward low population states. Your state could have 100 people, it would still have 2 senators, just like California.

 

[sdifox]

Actually it's worse than that. The senate is severely weighted toward low population states. Your state could have 100 people, it would still have 2 senators, just like California.

Senate is setup that way to ensure smaller states still have a voice.

There is really only one thing that needa to be done. Peoportional distribution of EC representatives. Say Republicans get 70% of Texas votes, they get 70% of the EC electors.

 

[Paratus]

Actually it's worse than that. The senate is severely weighted toward low population states. Your state could have 100 people, it would still have 2 senators, just like California.

Well that's the purpose of the senate. I don't have a problem with equal weighting of the states in the senate.

My problem is the president represents all the people in the country and the electoral college biases his election too heavily towards low population states.

The electoral college constitutionally allows some very undemocratic outcomes.

Technically 3 people could live in each of 49 states, (1 representative, and 2 senators) with the other 300 million living in a single other state that awards its votes proportionally and it would be possbile to win the electoral college with about 32% of the popular vote. In the one big state each voter would be worth as little as 1/600,000 of one of the voters in the other 49 states.

The other disturbing hypothetical is the constitution allows for a presidential candidate to win 100% of the vote but lose in the electoral college as technically federal law does not bind them to vote as the their states did. State laws forcing them to vote that way haven't been litigated as far as I know.

The reasoning for the college electoral doesn't really exist anymore. It was in part a compromise with the south to count their slave population and give them representational parity with the North.

The other reasons if you've looked the federalist papers was to act as a check on an uninformed electorate voting in an demogogue, someone unqualified, or someone beholden to a foreign power, (I'm sure back then they were still concerned about those loyal to the crown)

Today the electorate can easily be as informed on the candidates as they want and with electoral college voters being elected from their respective parties there is no way they are going to act as check on poor candidates.

 

[fskimospy]

Well that's the purpose of the senate. I don't have a problem with equal weighting of the states in the senate.

My problem is the president represents all the people in the country and the electoral college biases his election too heavily towards low population states.

The electoral college constitutionally allows some very undemocratic outcomes.

Technically 3 people could live in each of 49 states, (1 representative, and 2 senators) with the other 300 million living in a single other state that awards its votes proportionally and it would be possbile to win the electoral college with about 32% of the popular vote. In the one big state each voter would be worth as little as 1/600,000 of one of the voters in the other 49 states.

The other disturbing hypothetical is the constitution allows for a presidential candidate to win 100% of the vote but lose in the electoral college as technically federal law does not bind them to vote as the their states did. State laws forcing them to vote that way haven't been litigated as far as I know.

The reasoning for the college electoral doesn't really exist anymore. It was in part a compromise with the south to count their slave population and give them representational parity with the North.

The other reasons if you've looked the federalist papers was to act as a check on an uninformed electorate voting in an demogogue, someone unqualified, or someone beholden to a foreign power, (I'm sure back then they were still concerned about those loyal to the crown)

Today the electorate can easily be as informed on the candidates as they want and with electoral college voters being elected from their respective parties there is no way they are going to act as check on poor candidates.

The Senate follows similar reasoning to the EC that dirt and map lines are more important than people. Also, states are radically more imbalanced in size today than they were when the Constitution was enacted. I doubt the large states would have signed on if the imbalance was as as bad then as it is now.

 

[realibrad]

I would also say that the point of the EC was because the country was made up of mini-countries in their view. The central government was not as powerful as it is today. States were far more independent and did more things on their own. Back then, the power was with the states, and not the federal government. Times have changed and regardless of the reasons for this shift, it has happened. States are nowhere near as powerful as they once were, and they are not islands like they once were.

We are not really a country of states like we were, so the current system does not fit like it did.

 

[fskimospy]

I would also say that the point of the EC was because the country was made up of mini-countries in their view. The central government was not as powerful as it is today. States were far more independent and did more things on their own. Back then, the power was with the states, and not the federal government. Times have changed and regardless of the reasons for this shift, it has happened. States are nowhere near as powerful as they once were, and they are not islands like they once were.

We are not really a country of states like we were, so the current system does not fit like it did.

I very much agree. I still remember that line from Ken Burns’s civil war documentary saying the civil war changed the United States from an ‘are’ to an ‘is’. Almost no one (maybe some Texans) considers themselves a citizen of their state anymore, we are all Americans.

 

[Muse]

Senate is setup that way to ensure smaller states still have a voice.

There is really only one thing that needa to be done. Peoportional distribution of EC representatives. Say Republicans get 70% of Texas votes, they get 70% of the EC electors.

What's the point of not just going by the candidate with the plurality if you're going to do that?

 

[realibrad]

I very much agree. I still remember that line from Ken Burns’s civil war documentary saying the civil war changed the United States from an ‘are’ to an ‘is’. Almost no one (maybe some Texans) considers themselves a citizen of their state anymore, we are all Americans.

Part of me still wishes we were more split. There was lots of issues with states doing their own thing, but lots of good too. Slavery really was so horrific that I think it has tainted "states rights" for at least my lifetime. Drug laws seem to be bringing it back though.

 

[Muse]

I would also say that the point of the EC was because the country was made up of mini-countries in their view. The central government was not as powerful as it is today. States were far more independent and did more things on their own. Back then, the power was with the states, and not the federal government. Times have changed and regardless of the reasons for this shift, it has happened. States are nowhere near as powerful as they once were, and they are not islands like they once were.

We are not really a country of states like we were, so the current system does not fit like it did.

It has been noted that with the changing times, the increased communication capabilities (duh, telegraph has given way to the WWW, eh?), all places are quickly becoming one place. MacDonalds can be found in the most unlikely countries. The supremacy of the federal government compared to state governments was and is inevitable.

 

[fskimospy]

Part of me still wishes we were more split. There was lots of issues with states doing their own thing, but lots of good too. Slavery really was so horrific that I think it has tainted "states rights" for at least my lifetime. Drug laws seem to be bringing it back though.

I think you can make a good case for the US being split into two largely (or maybe entirely) autonomous entities. The northeast and west coasts simply want dramatically different governance than the south and interior.

When I think about that though I remember the millions of people in the south and Midwest who would be totally screwed without money from coastal states as their states are both unwilling and unable to provide for them.

 

[sdifox]

What's the point of not just going by the candidate with the plurality if you're going to do that?

It requires the least amount of change necessary and is proportional representation.

 

[fskimospy]

It requires the least amount of change necessary and is proportional representation.

Can you imagine how shitty it would be if an election was decided by rounding though? If every state ended up on the wrong rounding end for one candidate you could have a net swing of 100 electoral votes.

If we're going to change it better to just abolish the EC with the interstate compact.

 

[sdifox]

Can you imagine how shitty it would be if an election was decided by rounding though? If every state ended up on the wrong rounding end for one candidate you could have a net swing of 100 electoral votes.

If we're going to change it better to just abolish the EC with the interstate compact.

as opposed to the whole state's EC votes which is what you have right now? you don't have to touch your constitution, just have each state do proportional rep on the EC votes.


States where the margin of victory was under 1% (50 electoral votes; 46 won by Trump, 4 by Clinton):

1. Michigan, 0.23%
2. New Hampshire, 0.31%
3. Pennsylvania, 0.72%
4. Wisconsin, 0.76% (tipping point state)

lifted this off wikipedia. Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin accounts for 50 electoral votes, by my system the split would have been like this

State - Trump - Clinton
Michigan - 9 - 7
New Hampshire - 1 - 3
Pennsylvania - 11 - 9
Wisconsin - 6 - 4

So 27 - 23 as opposed to 46 - 4

Bottom line, you can still keep the EC and have a fairer representation.

 

[fskimospy]

as opposed to the whole state's EC votes which is what you have right now? you don't have to touch your constitution, just have each state do proportional rep on the EC votes.

You don't have to touch the constitution for the interstate compact either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

 

[sdifox]

You don't have to touch the constitution for the interstate compact either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

which one do you think is easier to push through?

 

[fskimospy]

which one do you think is easier to push through?

Both are probably very difficult but the interstate compact would probably be easier as you would only need enough states to cover 51% of the electoral votes while going full proportional would require all of them.

 

[realibrad]

I think you can make a good case for the US being split into two largely (or maybe entirely) autonomous entities. The northeast and west coasts simply want dramatically different governance than the south and interior.

When I think about that though I remember the millions of people in the south and Midwest who would be totally screwed without money from coastal states as their states are both unwilling and unable to provide for them.

If we were to force it now, the gridlock would only become worse. I could not imagine the chaos of trying to help P.R. either.

 

[realibrad]

It has been noted that with the changing times, the increased communication capabilities (duh, telegraph has given way to the WWW, eh?), all places are quickly becoming one place. MacDonalds can be found in the most unlikely countries. The supremacy of the federal government compared to state governments was and is inevitable.

The point of states rights was supposed to be a check against federal power. It would limit the ability of the federal government to decide top to bottom what states could do. Right now, that would be a great limit on Trump. Personally, I feel far too much power is put in the federal government. People really hate that some states will do bad things, but overall I think it would be good. We would have had gay marriage and legal weed.

 

[fskimospy]

The point of states rights was supposed to be a check against federal power. It would limit the ability of the federal government to decide top to bottom what states could do. Right now, that would be a great limit on Trump. Personally, I feel far too much power is put in the federal government. People really hate that some states will do bad things, but overall I think it would be good. We would have had gay marriage and legal weed.

In some states. In other states we would probably still have segregation.

In some ways I would prefer greater autonomy for states but one problem we have now is that a lot of states are simply not productive enough. I guess we could let migration solve that problem, but that might just make it worse too.

 

[scannall]

Smaller states are already getting screwed over by the larger ones. Eliminating the Electoral College would make it harder and deeper.

 

[fskimospy]

Smaller states are already getting screwed over by the larger ones. Eliminating the Electoral College would make it harder and deeper.

How are they being screwed?