Every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets. Of course, the results may not be the ones you intend, and your intentions may not be good.
In this case, we can try to answer a few things:
1. What were the intents behind the EC system we have?
2. Are those intents the right ones (anymore)?
3. Is the system producing results in line with thous intents?
My (incomplete) answers to these questions:
1. Clearly there were some intents behind the EC beyond enhancing representation to the little guys for fear of them being left out of our national agenda (from an executive branch side of things), but that to me seems to be the most important intent that is relevant today. I think it's easy to approximate why the founding fathers chose to set up government the way they have if we merely look at the fact that they were trying to inject as many protections they could against the tyranny they faced from Britain, and among this strongly is being a tiny piece of the whole with no representation. Among it also is the desire for the people to have power to resist government if it gets tyrranical.
2. I think the intents I outline in 1 are, at worst, minimally bad. Personally, I think the intent is actually pretty good, but that is merely my opinion based on my values. I do think that our government today has far outgrown the capacities to radically change it regardless of it being or becoming tyrranical, and not that it is merely that our system of meeting this intent is not good enough. I (personally) don't envision a way to give people sufficient enough power against our government to radically change it without this being very dangerous. I imagine in the 18th century this was very different.
3. We are electing a president through EC that wins the popular vote unless the race is very close, so for this argument we ought pay more attention to the fact that our races are very close instead. So, mostly, passionate calls for popular vote are IMO butt-hurt driven, and although I prefer a different system, I also think that popular vote deciding the presidency would be an absolutely fine thing to do. Statistically, we are doing only minimally different than that anyway.
Also, the system does largely fail in practice with the intent of adding representation to smaller states. Simply put, the discrepancies between EC and popular vote of late is due to medium-large swing states being so impacting, not small states.
It does, however, make candidates campaign in and consider the interests of smaller states, which I find important, although it's only partially beneficial in this. Generally, though, despite being over-represented, their interests will never change a platform if it puts a candidate in worse standing elsewhere.
I do think, though that the fact that EC votes are for almost every state winner-take-all, medium-large swing states not only have more sway in the general election, they have more sway in policy as well. Politicians will alter their platforms and make deals to get more votes in certain areas outside of the general interest of America and even to a party's base, and this is bad.
In this case, we can try to answer a few things:
1. What were the intents behind the EC system we have?
2. Are those intents the right ones (anymore)?
3. Is the system producing results in line with thous intents?
My (incomplete) answers to these questions:
1. Clearly there were some intents behind the EC beyond enhancing representation to the little guys for fear of them being left out of our national agenda (from an executive branch side of things), but that to me seems to be the most important intent that is relevant today. I think it's easy to approximate why the founding fathers chose to set up government the way they have if we merely look at the fact that they were trying to inject as many protections they could against the tyranny they faced from Britain, and among this strongly is being a tiny piece of the whole with no representation. Among it also is the desire for the people to have power to resist government if it gets tyrranical.
2. I think the intents I outline in 1 are, at worst, minimally bad. Personally, I think the intent is actually pretty good, but that is merely my opinion based on my values. I do think that our government today has far outgrown the capacities to radically change it regardless of it being or becoming tyrranical, and not that it is merely that our system of meeting this intent is not good enough. I (personally) don't envision a way to give people sufficient enough power against our government to radically change it without this being very dangerous. I imagine in the 18th century this was very different.
3. We are electing a president through EC that wins the popular vote unless the race is very close, so for this argument we ought pay more attention to the fact that our races are very close instead. So, mostly, passionate calls for popular vote are IMO butt-hurt driven, and although I prefer a different system, I also think that popular vote deciding the presidency would be an absolutely fine thing to do. Statistically, we are doing only minimally different than that anyway.
Also, the system does largely fail in practice with the intent of adding representation to smaller states. Simply put, the discrepancies between EC and popular vote of late is due to medium-large swing states being so impacting, not small states.
It does, however, make candidates campaign in and consider the interests of smaller states, which I find important, although it's only partially beneficial in this. Generally, though, despite being over-represented, their interests will never change a platform if it puts a candidate in worse standing elsewhere.
I do think, though that the fact that EC votes are for almost every state winner-take-all, medium-large swing states not only have more sway in the general election, they have more sway in policy as well. Politicians will alter their platforms and make deals to get more votes in certain areas outside of the general interest of America and even to a party's base, and this is bad.
Typical esky. Mental masturbation to stroke your over-inflated ego. You really must love the taste of your jizz, bro. Trump won by the rules and Hillary doesn't get a participation trophy. News flash; the founders were smarter than you or anyone else on this forum. I'll trust them over anyone on here any day and yes, I'd say that even if the old hag had won and Trump didn't get a participation trophy.
Do even bother to read what other people write, or do you just see the username and post canned responses to feed your overgrown ego?
Why are you guys calling @fskimospy's post ego-maniacal? I'm asking because I don't understand what he said to draw this conclusion -- not to render judgment on the validity of your claims.
What Trump called something or what he thinks or thought about the system doesn't mean a damned thing. The object is to gain 270 electoral votes, not to get the most general votes. It's like saying you deserve to win the game because you gained more yards while our opponent scored more points. If votes were the objective, then I'm sure each candidate would have a different strategy. Electoral college votes are the objective, so that's all that matters.
Bull. Trump might push for recounts and such if he thought he could win the EC, but the fact is the election is not about popular vote. It is a meaningless number. Trump supporters definitely would not be looting and rioting like we're seeing in big cities, that's pretty much exclusive to liberals.
More bull. Had Trump won the popular vote and Hillary the EC, I'd be disappointed, but that would be the end of it. Whether the system is good or not has nothing to do with the outcome. I prefer a system where the major population centers don't completely dominate the process, but that's just my perspective.
Exactly. It's working perfectly well, regardless of the who would have ended up winning. If the roles were reversed, I would still not be calling to get rid of the EC.
Only braindead stupid people question the validity of the election. It's not like someone changed the rules halfway through so Donald could steal the election. The rules were the rules all along, and he won based on those rules. Other metrics like popular vote mean absolutely nothing at this point, other than to the rabble looting and rioting.
Based on reviewing this thread, I'm sure I'll be dismissed as whining. However, I am really wanting to hear a very compelling reason for the EC over popular vote? As already stated, candidates have strategies where they ignore certain states anyway and focus on 'battleground states' so how is that different than 'smaller states' getting ignored. When the people are picking the leader of their country and their representative to the rest of the world, what is more compelling than letting the pure majority of people pick that person? It just doesn't get any bigger than that so why shouldn't the majority get who they want? What principle is greater than picking your president that it's worth having an EC?
Svnla
Lifer
- Nov 10, 2003
- 17,986
- 1,388
- 126
Obama and Hillary disagreed with you and called Trump as President - elect. Shall I provide a video clip about two of them said so?
Last edited:
One thing that I find funny about the argument that Trump won because he played to win the EC instead of the general election is that, going in, it was perceived that not only would Hillary win, but that her EC margin would be bigger than her general election margin.
If there was anyone arguing that he was going to win because he craftily played to weaknesses of the EC system despite trailing in the general election, I missed it.
I'm not saying he didn't campaign to win the EC instead of the general. I am saying that so did Hillary. Saying that Trump won because he did this better may be true, but it's an almost entirely post-hoc realization.
If there was anyone arguing that he was going to win because he craftily played to weaknesses of the EC system despite trailing in the general election, I missed it.
I'm not saying he didn't campaign to win the EC instead of the general. I am saying that so did Hillary. Saying that Trump won because he did this better may be true, but it's an almost entirely post-hoc realization.
Democrats are more geographically concentrated.
Makes you wonder: which one is the party that isolates itself and doesn't accept diversity and difference of opinion?
If, instead, you equally validly conclude that Democrats tend to live in areas of higher population density, I think the answer changes quite a bit.
OutHouse
Lifer
- Jun 5, 2000
- 36,410
- 616
- 126
you forgot to lump in the socialist, communist, nutrition, prohibition and every other party other than republican as being part of the liberal party, whatever that is.
OutHouse
Lifer
- Jun 5, 2000
- 36,410
- 616
- 126
Nothing but speculation. the system is working exactly as it was designed. you do know that you voted for electors to vote for your state in December right AND those electors CAN change their vote and vote for the other guy, does that just blow your mind??
Last edited:
The electoral college is in place and will never go away for one reason. We are not a democracy. We are a democratic republic. We elect representatives for our state, and representatives represent us on the national level.
A true democracy is mob rule, and you don't want that.
A true democracy is mob rule, and you don't want that.
OutHouse
Lifer
- Jun 5, 2000
- 36,410
- 616
- 126
Correct.
im actually astounded how ignorant people are on how the EC works. Holy balls did you guys fail Civics class on basic government? wow its truly sad.
OutHouse
Lifer
- Jun 5, 2000
- 36,410
- 616
- 126
The founding fathers knew this 250 years ago and is why they created the EC.
Brainonska511
Lifer
- Dec 10, 2005
- 27,764
- 12,247
- 136
You don't have to eliminate the electoral college. States could bring it back in line with how it operated in many states originally in the founding of this country (either through electoral districts or congressional districts, though those might be prone to gerrymandering), or some form of proportional representation per state instead of the winner-take-all model, which leaves Republicans in California and New York out in the cold with Democratic voters in Texas.
buckshot24
Diamond Member
- Nov 3, 2009
- 9,916
- 85
- 91
When you say proportional do you mean exactly proportional or would the winner of the state get some kind of bonus EC votes? If it is exactly proportional then you're pretty much talking about a popular vote winner anyway.
Brainonska511
Lifer
- Dec 10, 2005
- 27,764
- 12,247
- 136
I can think of two ways it could work off the bat:
Strictly proportional, so if Rs get 40% and Ds get 60% in a state, that's how the electoral votes get split. It would be closer to a popular vote, but you'd still be limited by the fact you still need to win states over as well. You couldn't necessarily run up the vote in a few major cities and ignore the rest of the country as you would in a strictly popular vote election.
Or through some sort of districting - if a D wins your district, they get the electoral vote (or vice versa). This method would be prone to gerrymandering though. I think Maine and Nebraska use this kind of system, and the extra 2 electoral votes are simply awarded by the at-large vote.
But both of these methods would encourage people to vote in safe states. Making the races closer could mean picking up an extra electoral vote or two. Or in the case of districting, get people to campaign in areas that might have been previously ignored (like upstate NY or republican areas of CA)
Winner-take-all was not how it always was and it doesn't have to be the way it stays.
buckshot24
Diamond Member
- Nov 3, 2009
- 9,916
- 85
- 91
Would you round up in favor of the winner of the state? I think there has to be a bonus for carrying the state.
Couldn't states already do this?
MrSquished
Lifer
- Jan 14, 2013
- 25,948
- 24,272
- 136
I've read a ton of analysis on the creation of the EC and there is a lot of bs going around. That this is meant to really protect small states. This came down to Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Those flip, it's going the other way. Forget the rust belt and forget Nevada. That's where the campaigning was focusing. All those are top 10 states in population with the exception of NC being number 11. How is that helping small states when the campaigning is in big states? It's not. You are wrong.
The primary reasons the founding fathers came up with the EC after considering a couple other systems was to 'protect' the possible tyranny of the masses if they voted in some criminal or despot. That and to prevent the highest populated states from instilling a 'favorite' son as president. Back then it was 13 states, now we have 50. The odds of one state installing a favorite son have severely diminished. Regardless, it just hasn't happened. If that was a worry we'd have many more instances of the popular vote and EC not jiving in our history. It just doesn't happen much at all.
And look at the popular vote in the 2 instances in modern history the EC overrode the popular vote. Gore in 2000 and Hillary in 2016. They won the popular vote but lost the EC but the margin of popular vote victory compared to the overall popular vote count, it wasn't by all that much. Enough for it to be a victory but by no means some sort of repudiation by the masses. The EC didn't prevent some massive tyranny of the masses, not even fucking close. Those were close races.
And in elections where the Electoral count victory was massive, often times the victors popular vote count was not nearly as large ratio wise as was their Electoral count. That just goes to show that it's more often the EC who gives us lopsided victories while the popular vote can keep it closer:
"Even in the vast majority of U.S. elections, in which the same candidate won both the popular and the electoral vote, the system usually makes the winner’s victory margin in the former a lot wider than in the latter. In 2012, for example, Barack Obama won 51% of the nationwide popular vote but nearly 62% of the electoral votes, or 332 out of 538. Looking back at all presidential elections since 1828 (when presidential campaigns began to resemble those of today), the winner’s electoral vote share has, on average, been 1.36 times his popular vote share – what we’ll call the electoral vote (EV) inflation factor."
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...des-are-easier-to-win-than-popular-vote-ones/
The primary reasons the founding fathers came up with the EC after considering a couple other systems was to 'protect' the possible tyranny of the masses if they voted in some criminal or despot. That and to prevent the highest populated states from instilling a 'favorite' son as president. Back then it was 13 states, now we have 50. The odds of one state installing a favorite son have severely diminished. Regardless, it just hasn't happened. If that was a worry we'd have many more instances of the popular vote and EC not jiving in our history. It just doesn't happen much at all.
And look at the popular vote in the 2 instances in modern history the EC overrode the popular vote. Gore in 2000 and Hillary in 2016. They won the popular vote but lost the EC but the margin of popular vote victory compared to the overall popular vote count, it wasn't by all that much. Enough for it to be a victory but by no means some sort of repudiation by the masses. The EC didn't prevent some massive tyranny of the masses, not even fucking close. Those were close races.
And in elections where the Electoral count victory was massive, often times the victors popular vote count was not nearly as large ratio wise as was their Electoral count. That just goes to show that it's more often the EC who gives us lopsided victories while the popular vote can keep it closer:
"Even in the vast majority of U.S. elections, in which the same candidate won both the popular and the electoral vote, the system usually makes the winner’s victory margin in the former a lot wider than in the latter. In 2012, for example, Barack Obama won 51% of the nationwide popular vote but nearly 62% of the electoral votes, or 332 out of 538. Looking back at all presidential elections since 1828 (when presidential campaigns began to resemble those of today), the winner’s electoral vote share has, on average, been 1.36 times his popular vote share – what we’ll call the electoral vote (EV) inflation factor."
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...des-are-easier-to-win-than-popular-vote-ones/
Brainonska511
Lifer
- Dec 10, 2005
- 27,764
- 12,247
- 136
Indeed, states could already do this. The constitution leaves it up to the states to decide how electors are decided. You could do some rounding up for the winner, or set the HoR-based electoral votes as proportional and the extra 2 go to the winner.
However, no state is going to sacrifice its political power by splitting its vote when no other states will do it as well (which is likely a big driver of the adoption of the winner-take-all model in the 1820s and 30s).
buckshot24
Diamond Member
- Nov 3, 2009
- 9,916
- 85
- 91
Ultimately I think this is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. But I do think you have some good suggestions on how it could work.
Brainonska511
Lifer
- Dec 10, 2005
- 27,764
- 12,247
- 136
I wouldn't say it doesn't exist as a problem, but it's just a problem that rarely shows its head. But my suggestions at least might be a nice compromise between people that want pure popular vote and people that want to keep the EC.
buckshot24
Diamond Member
- Nov 3, 2009
- 9,916
- 85
- 91
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter