We're stuck with the electoral college. But there is a workaround

[untermensche]

The Electoral College gave us Trump and allowed the Supreme Court to give us GW.

Enough said.

The Electoral College is a dangerous antidemocratic contrivance that does no good.

 

[Worldtraveller]

This strikes me as wanting to change the rules of the game because "my guy" didn't win (i.e. Al Gore in 2000, Hillary in 2016). Would Democrats still be wanting to eliminate the electoral college, if things were reversed and their candidates won the electoral college vote, but lost the popular vote in 2000 and 2016? My spidey sense says no. We'd be hearing about how great and necessary the electoral college is.

Yes.

This concludes today's episode of simple answers to stupid questions.

Glad I could help.

 

[Worldtraveller]

My guy lost a couple of times to the electoral college. But I'm in favor of keeping it. It gives some balance to the natural and obvious tensions between heavily populated, more urban states VS the less populated, more rural states. I see that balance as fundamental to the balance between states rights and responsibilities and national rights and responsibilities.

Otherwise, low population states such as...well, flyover country, would have very little to no say in policies that have dramatic effects on their state and their population.

Yes, I live in a low population state. I'm fine with not being the center of the universe but I'm not fine with a bunch of people who have zero idea what my state and my region is about, what our wishes, hopes, dreams and goals, what our needs and wants are and how they differ--in some ways, quite dramatically, from the needs/wants/wishes/hopes, dreams/goals of more populous states. I don't want my state or other rural states to be treated as colonies or third world countries and exploited for whatever the more populous areas want and ignored otherwise.

I don't think this is true. It takes away the flyover states from having excess power specifically in the election of the president/vice president. They still have an over influential effect because of the senate. That can stay in place without effecting the electoral college.

 

[Worldtraveller]

My guy lost a couple of times to the electoral college. But I'm in favor of keeping it. It gives some balance to the natural and obvious tensions between heavily populated, more urban states VS the less populated, more rural states. I see that balance as fundamental to the balance between states rights and responsibilities and national rights and responsibilities.

Otherwise, low population states such as...well, flyover country, would have very little to no say in policies that have dramatic effects on their state and their population.

Yes, I live in a low population state. I'm fine with not being the center of the universe but I'm not fine with a bunch of people who have zero idea what my state and my region is about, what our wishes, hopes, dreams and goals, what our needs and wants are and how they differ--in some ways, quite dramatically, from the needs/wants/wishes/hopes, dreams/goals of more populous states. I don't want my state or other rural states to be treated as colonies or third world countries and exploited for whatever the more populous areas want and ignored otherwise.

A vote in Wyoming carries three times the weight my vote in California does. In California we have nearly 40,000,000 people and two senators. Wyoming has 580,000 people and two senators. Throw in North Dakota and South Dakota and you get 6 senators for a little over two million people. That gives those people 3 times the power in the Senate as 40,000,000 others.

Next, the argument that we have many more people in the House means that it all balances out is bullshit. Our voting power and representation is greatly diminished 2/3 of the time.

The electoral college is a farce that allowed Bush/Cheney to get into office and now Trump. A majority of Americans are progressive minded (look at the overall vote tallies), yet we're hampered and dragged down by these fucking MAGA retards and disproportionately powerful religious halfwits. Meanwhile, states like California and New York are forced to give an excess of their tax dollars to the fed in order to prop up these broken red states.

When we vote for a President, it makes that person the President of all Americans. Thus, the one person, one vote standard should apply.

In a presidential election, California has 55 electoral votes; Wyoming has 3. California has more than 18 times the influence on the presidential elections that Wyoming does. More, actually. How much campaigning does anyone ever do in Wyoming? Isn’t 18 times the influence enough? Why does California merit 70 times the influence? More given the attention that Californis gets in ....everything.

Well, CA has about 70 times more population, why wouldn't they have that same amount of influence? That's how representative democracies are supposed to work, last I checked.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In a presidential election, California has 55 electoral votes; Wyoming has 3. California has more than 18 times the influence on the presidential elections that Wyoming does. More, actually. How much campaigning does anyone ever do in Wyoming? Isn’t 18 times the influence enough? Why does California merit 70 times the influence? More given the attention that Californis gets in ....everything.

Well, CA has about 70 times more population, why wouldn't they have that same amount of influence? That's how representative democracies are supposed to work, last I checked.

And if you ran the numbers, California is likely under represented in the Electoral College, relative to Wyoming.

 

[Gun Nut]

My guy lost a couple of times to the electoral college. But I'm in favor of keeping it. It gives some balance to the natural and obvious tensions between heavily populated, more urban states VS the less populated, more rural states. I see that balance as fundamental to the balance between states rights and responsibilities and national rights and responsibilities.

Federal government officials we vote for (allegedly) represent the interests of PEOPLE, not the land.

Otherwise, low population states such as...well, flyover country, would have very little to no say in policies that have dramatic effects on their state and their population.

correct. The two people that live in the state of bubfuckizan that contribute 0 to the national economy and suck dry the coffers of Social Services should not have an equal amount of voting power as the tens of thousands of people that live in wine country, providing millions of dollars of national wealth and who contribute to Social services more than they drain them.
Laws, policies, etc.. do not impact square footage.. .they impact families.

Yes, I live in a low population state. I'm fine with not being the center of the universe but I'm not fine with a bunch of people who have zero idea what my state and my region is about, what our wishes, hopes, dreams and goals, what our needs and wants are and how they differ--in some ways, quite dramatically, from the needs/wants/wishes/hopes, dreams/goals of more populous states. I don't want my state or other rural states to be treated as colonies or third world countries and exploited for whatever the more populous areas want and ignored otherwise.

That is the beauty of our Republic. Your shithole state with low population density (because you lack resources and educational opportunities, due to low taxes failing to support your children, your health... - don't get me started on your state's self-inflicted wounds) can choose those poverty-inducing local policies and laws all you want. No one cares how many teeth you have left in your mouth if that's how yer get er done. If you don't want your children getting edamacated with skools, that's fine... you can do that in this great Republic of ours.
What you should not be able to do is have more federal voting power than any other American.
Name one example of a federal law that negatively impacts those who choose to live rural versus urban... or vica versa..

 

[Bomb#20]

...contribute 0 to the national economy and suck dry the coffers of Social Services should not have an equal amount of voting power as the tens of thousands of people that live in wine country, providing millions of dollars of national wealth and who contribute to Social services more than they drain them.

The question is, are the tens of thousands of people that live in wine country actually providing millions of dollars of national wealth? Which wine are we talking about here?

 

[Gun Nut]

Yes. The tens of thousands of people living in more urban areas are providing the VAST majority of aide to the dozens of people living in rural areas. That it takes only 1 redneck to counter the votes of 10 slickers is anti-democratic, especially in light of how social services are rendered. Why should 1 person wanting to impose their views on everyone else be more impactful than 10 people wanting the opposite effect? Because of square footage of land? Why not total property value? Why not total tax revenue? Why not education level? Why not contribution to GNP per capita? What is the relevance of square footage of empty space available relevant to the value of their political opinions?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Yes. The tens of thousands of people living in more urban areas are providing the VAST majority of aide to the dozens of people living in rural areas. That it takes only 1 redneck to counter the votes of 10 slickers is anti-democratic, especially in light of how social services are rendered. Why should 1 person wanting to impose their views on everyone else be more impactful than 10 people wanting the opposite effect? Because of square footage of land? Why not total property value? Why not total tax revenue? Why not education level? Why not contribution to GNP per capita? What is the relevance of square footage of empty space available relevant to the value of their political opinions?

Well, in areas with smaller populations, each person you can get out to the polls carries a correspondingly higher percentage of the final vote totals. That means when you can influence people to get motivated to vote based on single issue campaigns, each of those people is therefore more valuable and it's therefore cheaper to bribe legislators and impact the electoral process to support and advance your positions. Basically that means that buying off a Senator from one of the Dakotas would generally be significantly cheaper than buying off a Senator from California, so there's an active incentive to keep the current unequal system in place.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

If anyone were to go back to my proposal, you would see it addresses the proportionality argument without unenforceable agreements or constitutional amendments.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/02/states-signing-popular-vote-pact-prevented-trumps-election/

According to a report in the Washington Post, a group of states are banding together to form a pact that could change how they allocate electoral votes — which could have a far-reaching impact on presidential elections and might have kept Donald Trump out of the Oval Office. At issue is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact — that could possibly award the 2020 presidency to whoever wins the popular vote if enough states sign on.

As of now, there are 172 electoral votes from the 12 states (Rhode Island, Vermont, Hawaii, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Washington, New Jersey, New York, Illinois, California and the District of Columbia) that are in play. More states are needed to reach the 270 electoral votes at which point the pact would be implemented.

----

Change is in the air.

 

[lpetrich]

Beto: ‘I Think There’s a Lot of Wisdom in’ Abolishing Electoral College

Beto O’Rourke endorsed fellow Democratic presidential contender Elizabeth Warren’s call for the abolition of the Electoral College during a Tuesday campaign stop in Pennsylvania.

What Cheerful Charlie recently posted on is the National Popular Vote initiative. Colorado Governor Jared Polis signed it into law on March 15, after it passed the legislature on February 21. New Mexico's legislature passed it on March 12, and Delaware's on March 14. The governors of both those states are expected to sign those bills.

It's now at 181 EV's with 89 to go. With DE and NM, with their 3 + 5 = 8 EV's, the numbers will become 189 and 81. Oregon may be difficult, since an important politician there wants it decided by referendum. But if OR joins with its 7 EV's, that will give 196 and 74.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

All the states in the pact are "blue" states. This will have fascinating results if a Republican wins the popular vote.

 

[Terrell]

This pact is about as good as toilet paper; after I've wiped my ass with it. How do you enforce it in the time between the election returns & the Electoral College vote? As far as I know there's aren't do-overs in U.S. Presidential elections. How is this effective if states that lean or are solid Republican don't join & why should they? If you want to get rid of the electoral college you're going to have to amend the constitution. I doubt any workaround will work if there aren't lean/solid Red States on board and a means of timely enforcement.

 

[lpetrich]

74 EV's is a long way to go, so I'll guess, using some blue and purple states. NV, MN, MI, NH, ME, PA = 6 + 10 + 16 + 4 + 4 + 20 = 60. That gets down to 14 EV's. OH will do it, and VA will leave one EV left.

 

[just_me]

i don't have any dog in this hunt, so I couldn't care less. One way or the other, but isn't the way the electorial college works is inshrined in the constitution and If these state do this, wouldn't the supreme court get into this and look at their makeup right now?

 

[zorq]

i don't have any dog in this hunt, so I couldn't care less. One way or the other, but isn't the way the electorial college works is inshrined in the constitution and If these state do this, wouldn't the supreme court get into this and look at their makeup right now?

This proposal doesn't discard the electoral college, it does an end-run around it delivering the results of a national popular vote without actually dismantling or changing any of the actual legal machinery already in place.

The SC doesn't have any say in how the states choose their electors. According to the constitution, that's left up to the states.

The states who have enacted this pact agree to give all their electoral votes to the candidate with the most votes nationally and disregard how many people actually voted for that candidate or any other candidate in their particular state. (as is the most common system in place today)

 

[just_me]

i don't have any dog in this hunt, so I couldn't care less. One way or the other, but isn't the way the electorial college works is inshrined in the constitution and If these state do this, wouldn't the supreme court get into this and look at their makeup right now?

This proposal doesn't discard the electoral college, it does an end-run around it delivering the results of a national popular vote without actually dismantling or changing any of the actual legal machinery already in place.

The SC doesn't have any say in how the states choose their electors. According to the constitution, that's left up to the states.

The states who have enacted this pact agree to give all their electoral votes to the candidate with the most votes nationally and disregard how many people actually voted for that candidate or any other candidate in their particular state. (as is the most common system in place today)

Thanks man. I was wondering about the SC. It'd be a shame to have all these people bust their tail just to get smacked down by them.

 

[lpetrich]

National Popular Vote Delaware has now passed it. It's at 184 EV's with 86 EV's to go, and the next state that may join is New Mexico.

 

[Trausti]

The Democrats should do away with the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary. Just have one national popular vote for the party presidential nominee. Make it real, man.