What Are The Consequences Of The EC-Popular Vote Mismatch Longterm?

[poofyhairguy]

Despite winning three times, Republicans have lost the popular vote in six out of the last seven presidential elections. That situation probably insulates the electoral college from change (why would Republicans give up the thing saving their ass?), but it also means that going forward the mismatch might just grow and grow until millions of votes separate the Democratic candidate and whatever future Republican wins. As it is the gap this year is much larger than the Gore-Bush gap was.

What are the consequences to this growing mismatch long-term? Will the American people continue to accept the EC's power to keep presidential elections from turning into the Hunger Games (we do love that movie), or will major cities trade protests today for violence down the road after an election when a Republican winner loses the popular vote by millions?

And if the violence comes, what can we do about it? Actually changing the system seems politically impossible, as there is a 0% chance that small rural states are going to give up an advantage on account of a "fairness" that will always get the candidate they don't like elected. Do we just stop counting the total votes? Quit when a state is won or lost mathematically and leave it at that? What else can we do?

 

[NostaSeronx]

The best way is to get rid of the Electors, instead calculate via an elector computer. Which in turn, calculates in elector credits. That happens to be assigned by winner-takes-percentage of the maximum allotted credits. This gives a voice to the losers/crybabies, and it makes the person who wins the national popular vote more likely to win. More people will move to the big cities as that is where the jobs are at currently.

 

[Genx87]

If all the states went to a system like Maine or Nebraska would it fix the issue for the left? I think they would run into the issue of 3rd party candidates causing a deadlock which send it to the house to fix. Saw somebody went through this exercise to divvy up electoral votes based on proportionality and both Clinton and Trump failed to get 270 electoral votes.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Problem with comparing the EC to popular vote is popular vote isn't truly representative either. No republican is going to campaign heavily in states they can't win like Hawaii, California, New York. Those states represent a huge amount of votes to the democrat by default. It's reasonable to think more might have been swayed to Trump if he spent the money in those places negating the entire conversation.

 

[NostaSeronx]

Saw somebody went through this exercise to divvy up electoral votes based on proportionality and both Clinton and Trump failed to get 270 electoral votes.

The more than 270 more number is suppose to give a perfect win. Since, 2000 it doesn't give a perfect win anymore. Trump is pretty much assured 306 votes, if the electors vote in his favor. While he lost the nationwide popular vote by a relative huge margin. Virginia was always what broke the camels back when the EC was first created. The EC was always meant to take the vote from the small rural/sub-urban states to the bigger city/urban states. While, giving the illusion that it was a fair process.

 

[ivwshane]

We are already seeing the consequences. Lower voter turn out, disaffected voters, and increase in mentality that government is broken/rigged/corrupt. The seeds that will grow into something that destroys our democracy have already been planted.

An uneducated public is the greatest threat to democracy.

 

[Chiropteran]

Lots of whining on the internet.

 

[ivwshane]

Just some food for thought.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._showing_the_vote_power_of_all_50_states.html

 

[ivwshane]

Lots of whining on the internet.

Feel free to leave.

 

[Genx87]

We are already seeing the consequences. Lower voter turn out, disaffected voters, and increase in mentality that government is broken/rigged/corrupt. The seeds that will grow into something that destroys our democracy have already been planted.

An uneducated public is the greatest threat to democracy.

Voter turnout being down significantly is false. Still quite a bit higher than the 2000 election and just a shade off the 2012 election.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/no-voter-turnout-wasnt-way-down-from-2012/?ex_cid=story-facebook

 

[ivwshane]

Voter turnout being down significantly is false. Still quite a bit higher than the 2000 election and just a shade off the 2012 election.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/no-voter-turnout-wasnt-way-down-from-2012/?ex_cid=story-facebook

Lol, is voter turnout down or not? I'm not sure why you'd use a low voter turnout election as your example of why voter turnout isn't down compared to now. That seems like a pretty basic logic error.

 

[Genx87]

Lol, is voter turnout down or not? I'm not sure why you'd use a low voter turnout election as your example of why voter turnout isn't down compared to now. That seems like a pretty basic logic error.

It isn't down as the article points out.

 

[poofyhairguy]

We are already seeing the consequences. Lower voter turn out, disaffected voters, and increase in mentality that government is broken/rigged/corrupt. The seeds that will grow into something that destroys our democracy have already been planted.

See I like the EC and I live in a solid red state where my vote doesn't count. It is very liberating because I can vote for who I want without guilt. I know some people don't agree with me.

And I think the number of voters is down due to not having Obama.

Republican side is about the same the whole time.

 

[ivwshane]

See I like the EC and I live in a solid red state where my vote doesn't count. It is very liberating because I can vote for who I want without guilt. I know some people don't agree with me.

And I think the number of voters is down due to not having Obama.

Republican side is about the same the whole time.

Voter turnout isn't down according genx87, so I'm not sure what your chart is showing us.

 

[ivwshane]

It isn't down as the article points out.

Lol, critical thinking is critical.

That’s down only slightly from 2012, when turnout was 58.6 percent

Sort of reminds me of the claim that George w Bush kept us safe because there wasn't a terrorist attack after 9/11. To the non brain dead, we can see the obvious flaw in that logic.

 

[cbrunny]

As stupid an nonsensical as the EC is, it isn't going anywhere. And perhaps it shouldn't either. I have become moderately torn on this.....

1) The point of the US Governance system is checks & balances. By virtue of this it is not unreasonable that different pillars are selected/elected based on different criteria.

2) Constitution Amendment BS.

3) If a system of straight-up popular vote came about, it is possible that the same states would have more power than others as is currently the case. This would essentially be true in any state that was a hard-lined blue or red state, particularly California with a high pop as well. Would more or less turn into a "who can get more turnout" rather than "who can win more votes" - note these are not the same thing. Really, super high population states, and more specifically, super high population regions within high population states would be targeted primarily.

4) If the President didn't have the ability to control the military without consent of Congress, no one would care. The powers of the President are already very limited, especially compared to the relative powers of a Prime Minister of a typical Parliament. Military is different though. Nukes are not the same as domestic or foreign policy / trade / taxation. I get that someone needs to be in charge and just as I said right here military is different, but the notion that one person can blow up the earth AND that one person is part of a complex system of checks and balances is hypocritical.

 

[Genx87]

Lol, critical thinking is critical.

Sort of reminds me of the claim that George w Bush kept us safe because there wasn't a terrorist attack after 9/11. To the non brain dead, we can see the obvious flaw in that logic.

Of look if we go back to the 1800s it is way down. /smh

 

[cbrunny]

Of look if we go back to the 1800s it is way down. /smh

probably due to poor literacy.

 

[ivwshane]

Of look if we go back to the 1800s it is way down. /smh

Or you could go back to, oh I don't know, 2008, dipshit.

 

[LegendKiller]

As stupid an nonsensical as the EC is, it isn't going anywhere. And perhaps it shouldn't either. I have become moderately torn on this.....

1) The point of the US Governance system is checks & balances. By virtue of this it is not unreasonable that different pillars are selected/elected based on different criteria.

2) Constitution Amendment BS.

3) If a system of straight-up popular vote came about, it is possible that the same states would have more power than others as is currently the case. This would essentially be true in any state that was a hard-lined blue or red state, particularly California with a high pop as well. Would more or less turn into a "who can get more turnout" rather than "who can win more votes" - note these are not the same thing. Really, super high population states, and more specifically, super high population regions within high population states would be targeted primarily.

4) If the President didn't have the ability to control the military without consent of Congress, no one would care. The powers of the President are already very limited, especially compared to the relative powers of a Prime Minister of a typical Parliament. Military is different though. Nukes are not the same as domestic or foreign policy / trade / taxation. I get that someone needs to be in charge and just as I said right here military is different, but the notion that one person can blow up the earth AND that one person is part of a complex system of checks and balances is hypocritical.

Why is it nonsensical? CA margin is *ALL* of her margin. 49 states cannot be outweighed by Mexifornia. That isn't a Republic.

 

[cbrunny]

Why is it nonsensical? CA margin is *ALL* of her margin. 49 states cannot be outweighed by Mexifornia. That isn't a Republic.

You STILL don't know what a Republic is ?!

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic

 

[Victorian Gray]

Lots of whining on the internet.

A lot of cat pictures as well.

 

[Jhhnn]

What are the consequences? Undermining the credibility of our elections, our govt & of Democracy itself.

Repubs don't care about that. Hell, they've been undermining the integrity & credibility of govt for decades. It's part of their winning strategy. Just tear it down & let the plutocracy fill the power vacuum.

 

[BoomerD]

If the results.were the other way around...(R)'s winning the popular.vote, (D)'s winning the EC vote...they'd be SCREAMING to do away with the EC. It's easy to support a system that has been working in your favor.

The Electoral College might have made sense in a time before instant communications, but nowadays? Nope. Time to make it go away.

 

[Sunburn74]

The EC is about as useful as the 3rd amendment.