Why not award the presidency to the popular vote winner?

[interchange]

Smaller states are disproportionately represented in the senate (bigly) and EC (somewhat). The house does vary on # of population / representative but that's not inherently biased toward big or little states (only toward little states if they have exactly 1 representative and a teeny tiny population).

However, the EC results are minimally affected by small states. Winning the presidential election is about winning swing states -- ones with winner-take-all EC voting, large populations, and close to even #s of democrats and republicans. You could win Delaware, DC, Vermont, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and New Mexico -- and still come 8 EC votes from winning Florida alone. Hillary won all those states and lost Florida by 1.2%.

 

[nickqt]

The electoral college should just get tweaked.

There should be be 102 less electoral college votes (remove the two electoral college votes per each Senator, and the two from DC).

Low population states essentially get "extra" say in the presidential election with those two electoral college votes per Senator.

Low population states already get "extra" representation in the Senate. That should be enough.

 

[interchange]

The electoral college should just get tweaked.

There should be be 102 less electoral college votes (remove the two electoral college votes per each Senator, and the two from DC).

Low population states essentially get "extra" say in the presidential election with those two electoral college votes per Senator.

Low population states already get "extra" representation in the Senate. That should be enough.

You are arguing for a lower precision version of the popular vote. If you want even representation based on population, why would you approximate it when you can just use the popular vote?

Edit: Actually, after thinking about it, I came up with a reason in your favor. Taking the popular vote over the EC you suggest introduces bias in favor of voter turnout.

Which is interesting, as we haven't really talked about that before. The current EC system does correct for voter turnout from the popular vote. Would be interesting to see if blue states have higher voter turnout than red states, thus being over-represented in the popular vote even if the margin is relatively small.

Still, in your scenario, no need to approximate into chunks of 436. If you're making it purely population representative, just assign weights to each state's votes to correct for voter turnout. You could do this with either a winner-take-all per state strategy or a proportional vote.

 

[nickqt]

You are arguing for a lower precision version of the popular vote. If you want even representation based on population, why would you approximate it when you can just use the popular vote?

I think that there are pros and cons for using the popular vote, and for using the electoral college system.

The electoral college system is in the constitution, and because of 2000 and 2016, I highly doubt any Republican-majority state is going to vote to possibly diminish its own power. And, it's a better version of the system without totally replacing it.

So, as a compromise, just remove 102 electoral college votes, (2 from each state because of the 2 Senators) and 2 from DC, leaving DC with one, as per the 23rd Amendment.

This solves a few problems, in my opinion.

1st: The low population states are already over-represented in the Senate. They don't need the electoral college too.

2nd: The electoral college itself becomes solely based on population (popular vote) and yet it is still states that have the electoral college votes to cast.

3rd: ~18% of electoral college votes are based on the arbitrary number of states rather than the states' population... making the number of states won a factor in who wins, rather than the population of the states. Somewhat of a different view on 1, above.

Ultimately, by removing the two "extra" votes for each state (and DC), the electoral college treats each state as equal by allocating votes by population in the state. Otherwise, small state citizens get more representation simply for being a low population state.

 

[interchange]

I think that there are pros and cons for using the popular vote, and for using the electoral college system.

The electoral college system is in the constitution, and because of 2000 and 2016, I highly doubt any Republican-majority state is going to vote to possibly diminish its own power. And, it's a better version of the system without totally replacing it.

So, as a compromise, just remove 102 electoral college votes, (2 from each state because of the 2 Senators) and 2 from DC, leaving DC with one, as per the 23rd Amendment.

This solves a few problems, in my opinion.

1st: The low population states are already over-represented in the Senate. They don't need the electoral college too.

2nd: The electoral college itself becomes solely based on population (popular vote) and yet it is still states that have the electoral college votes to cast.

3rd: ~18% of electoral college votes are based on the arbitrary number of states rather than the states' population... making the number of states won a factor in who wins, rather than the population of the states. Somewhat of a different view on 1, above.

Ultimately, by removing the two "extra" votes for each state (and DC), the electoral college treats each state as equal by allocating votes by population in the state. Otherwise, small state citizens get more representation simply for being a low population state.

Still, why approximate the representation?

I'll give you an analogy:

You have a bag of red and blue beads representing the votes. Here are the options:
1. Take 436 fistfuls of beads and assign 1 vote to red or blue depending on whether each fistful has majority red or blue (with the caveat that fistfuls can range from 123 to 147 beads)
2. Count all the damn beads as 1 vote a piece

 

[Double Trouble]

There are pros and cons to using the EC instead of popular vote, but I know one thing for certain: it ain't going away any time soon. Changing it would require constitutional amendment, which means you'd have to have two thirds of the House and the Senate or two thirds of the state legislatures. There's no way any of the less populous states (and their reps) would agree to it, which means at least half the states won't go along with such an amendment as it would reduce their say in the election.

If you live in MT, VT, NH or ID or any less populated state, why exactly would you want more influence from New Yorkers or Californians over who becomes the president?

 

[fskimospy]

There are pros and cons to using the EC instead of popular vote, but I know one thing for certain: it ain't going away any time soon. Changing it would require constitutional amendment, which means you'd have to have two thirds of the House and the Senate or two thirds of the state legislatures. There's no way any of the less populous states (and their reps) would agree to it, which means at least half the states won't go along with such an amendment as it would reduce their say in the election.

Nope.

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

 

[BurnItDwn]

Pulling numbers out of your ass does not give your any credibility. You have no reason to think that corruption would be any less. You are suggesting we change things but you have no thought behind it.

My assumption is "regular people who do not want to be politicians are less likely to be corrupt than people who became politicians by choice."
If you disagree with that assumption, than simply state that you disagree with it, but stop pretending like it's such a difficult thing to grok.

 

[realibrad]

My assumption is "regular people who do not want to be politicians are less likely to be corrupt than people who became politicians by choice."
If you disagree with that assumption, than simply state that you disagree with it, but stop pretending like it's such a difficult thing to grok.

I already did. Look again. I clearly said that people not wanting to do the job are just as, if not more likely to be corrupted. The temptation for nice things is not mitigated by not wanting the job. How can you be so dumb. You want to put people into a job that they did not want, and then you think they wont take the benefits that corruption has. Wow.

 

[OutHouse]

Can you explain why that is more valuable than the general population having a voice?

Because a direct vote would strongly tilt elections in favor of candidates who can win huge electoral margins in the large cities and dense counties.

 

[Brainonska511]

Because a direct vote would strongly tilt elections in favor of candidates who can win huge electoral margins in the large cities and dense counties.

What's inherently wrong with that? That's where a lot of the people live. As it stands now, we're strongly tilting elections towards candidates who can win a handful of swing states while completely ignoring heavily populated areas (except when they want to host a fundraiser).

 

[Yakk]

Because a direct vote would strongly tilt elections in favor of candidates who can win huge electoral margins in the large cities and dense counties.

Yup, in a nutshell.

Large portions of lowly populated areas would be even more ignored than they are now and politicians would have zero reason to even acknowledge their existantance. It would actually be working against a politician to do anything for low population density areas when they could be doing something for high density populated areas and get more votes.

 

[Brainonska511]

Yup, in a nutshell.

Large portions of lowly populated areas would be even more ignored than they are now and politicians would have zero reason to even acknowledge their existantance. It would actually be working against a politician to do anything for low population density areas when they could be doing something for high density populated areas and get more votes.

Those areas are already over-represented in the legislature. Why are we insisting that they also get over-represented in the presidential election? Whatever happened to 1 person, 1 vote?

 

[OutHouse]

What's inherently wrong with that? That's where a lot of the people live. As it stands now, we're strongly tilting elections towards candidates who can win a handful of swing states while completely ignoring heavily populated areas (except when they want to host a fundraiser).

maybe somebody else can explain it clearer. its pretty clear on what is wrong with that.

 

[OutHouse]

Those areas are already over-represented in the legislature. Why are we insisting that they also get over-represented in the presidential election? Whatever happened to 1 person, 1 vote?

you have that in state and local elections. General elections is EC.

christ do they not teach basic civics in school anymore? its not a new concept its been around for a long time.

 

[Brainonska511]

you have that in state and local elections. General elections is EC.

christ do they not teach basic civics in school anymore? its not a new concept its been around for a long time.

I am well aware of how the general election works. Insulting people is not going to make people amenable to your arguments. Tradition alone is simply a poor excuse to keep doing something.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I wrote to my state legislators today and requested that they do everything to protect the EC.

 

[fskimospy]

Because a direct vote would strongly tilt elections in favor of candidates who can win huge electoral margins in the large cities and dense counties.

...because that's where all the people live.

I'm still waiting to hear a reason other than that it will give a result you don't like.

 

[fskimospy]

I wrote to my state legislators today and requested that they do everything to protect the EC.

Lol, I genuinely hope you did that because that would be one of the stupidest wastes of time I've ever heard of. Can you copy the letter here as that would be hilarious.

 

[fskimospy]

you have that in state and local elections. General elections is EC.

christ do they not teach basic civics in school anymore? its not a new concept its been around for a long time.

Wait, so your argument is that we shouldn't have one person one vote in one type of election because we have it in others?

Lolwut.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Lol, I genuinely hope you did that because that would be one of the stupidest wastes of time I've ever heard of. Can you copy the letter here as that would be hilarious.

I'm glad to see you consider the link you keep posting as a waste of time. EC will be here through out your and my lifetimes.

 

[OutHouse]

Wait, so your argument is that we shouldn't have one person one vote in one type of election because we have it in others?

Lolwut.

no you troll. im just telling you what the constitution says. seriously, you are smarter than this stop trolling.

 

[buckshot24]

Those areas are already over-represented in the legislature. Why are we insisting that they also get over-represented in the presidential election? Whatever happened to 1 person, 1 vote?

Because we are a united states. We are not a just a single nation but a collection of states making up a nation. A purely popular vote isn't going to be 100% fair either, somebody is going to be left out no matter how you set it up.

 

[OutHouse]

...because that's where all the people live.

I'm still waiting to hear a reason other than that it will give a result you don't like.

jesus dude give it up. its been explained Ad nauseam. we cant help it if you cant accept the answer.

 

[buckshot24]

no you troll. im just telling you what the constitution says. seriously, you are smarter than this stop trolling.

He's still getting his head around the idea of "President Trump", he can't help it.