Electoral College Vote VS National Popular Vote

[Cheshire]

Hey everyone! For one of my subjects, we have to do an assignment that contributes 30% to my marks and I need to have a survey included in it so I was wondering if everyone could respond to this so I can try and get a more accurate views and thus will get me more marks (so please do it). Also if anyone has their own ideas on what system should replace the electoral college, please do say.

 

[Baobhan]

The big thing about the electoral college system, and i don't mean to spark a debate, is that America suffers from being MASSIVE. Larger than some continents in the fact that it is a single country. And within that, you have a massive sum of people from different areas, climates and sub economies within that group. But the mass sum of your population is on the coasts of the U.S.

The electoral college gives each state a value of worth based on various factors which allow each state to effectively have its say in the presidency. Otherwise a nominee would be able to simply pander to the massive population centers on the coasts, and, should they win there, they then win everywhere. Never needing to promise anything or deal with the less populated states in the middle. Which would cause a massive problem.

The issue that the system does have is the delegate / superdelegate system and the weird zoning thing that they do which opens itself up to things like gerrymandering. Where, a state for example can be made up of 5 zones, where 70% of people vote red , but they distribute that population through zoning to have 50% of that read split between 2 zones and only 5% of the blue, leaving the 20% of the red between the other 3 against the blue's 25%... so now you have a blue state. Woo! (This is a gross oversimplification, but you get the idea.)

While the system does open itself up to the popular vote not being the 'only' thing that matters, which seems undemocratic, it means that presidential candidates literally 'cannot' ignore the small states in central US, otherwise they loose elections, which is ultimately good for equality.

If you would like to talk about this more, HMU up on skype. This is what i do as a socio/political anthropologist ^_^

 

[Wit]

As you've got an option allowing people to comment with a solution of their own, I'd suggest making a google form for this and posting the link in this thread. That way you'll find it easier to handle the results as google forms allows you to just spit the results out as a xls. And if your instructor asks you to submit the survey results the xls becomes a life saver!

 

[Cheshire]

As you've got an option allowing people to comment with a solution of their own, I'd suggest making a google form for this and posting the link in this thread. That way you'll find it easier to handle the results as google forms allows you to just spit the results out as a xls. And if your instructor asks you to submit the survey results the xls becomes a life saver!

I have no idea how to do that so I wanted people to comment here so I can create the survey. But I will take a look into it! Thank you Wit!

 

[Wit]

I have no idea how to do that so I wanted people to comment here so I can create the survey. But I will take a look into it! Thank you Wit!

It's very simple, just follow this guide and should have it up in no time: https://support.google.com/docs/answer/87809?hl=en

Another benefit of making a form like this is that you can share the same form with people all over the place and get all your responses in one location. We used to make one of these for our courses and all the team members would share it within their circles and we didn't have to worry about combining our responses or any such logistic issues.

 

[The Captain]

The big thing about the electoral college system, and i don't mean to spark a debate, is that America suffers from being MASSIVE. Larger than some continents in the fact that it is a single country. And within that, you have a massive sum of people from different areas, climates and sub economies within that group. But the mass sum of your population is on the coasts of the U.S.

The electoral college gives each state a value of worth based on various factors which allow each state to effectively have its say in the presidency. Otherwise a nominee would be able to simply pander to the massive population centers on the coasts, and, should they win there, they then win everywhere. Never needing to promise anything or deal with the less populated states in the middle. Which would cause a massive problem.

The issue that the system does have is the delegate / superdelegate system and the weird zoning thing that they do which opens itself up to things like gerrymandering. Where, a state for example can be made up of 5 zones, where 70% of people vote red , but they distribute that population through zoning to have 50% of that read split between 2 zones and only 5% of the blue, leaving the 20% of the red between the other 3 against the blue's 25%... so now you have a blue state. Woo! (This is a gross oversimplification, but you get the idea.)

While the system does open itself up to the popular vote not being the 'only' thing that matters, which seems undemocratic, it means that presidential candidates literally 'cannot' ignore the small states in central US, otherwise they loose elections, which is ultimately good for equality.

If you would like to talk about this more, HMU up on skype. This is what i do as a socio/political anthropologist ^_^

Presidential candidates already ignore the smaller states, but now they focus on states that might swing to their party.

In the electoral college system, thanks to the extra votes given to smaller states voters there actually have more power per person than in larger states. Around half the states in the country also allow electors to flip on their votes, something that came up here. It renders the opinions of the minority party in a state unimportant because the majority party wins everything. And to top it all off it allows candidates to win without being the most popular. In fact someone online showed that you can with 51% of the electoral college with only about 29% of the popular vote.

This system is, by its nature, undemocratic, and the founders made it that way because they didn't trust people to be informed. But in the Internet age that is no longer a problem, and people should be trusted to directly vote.

And on the line about population centers, I'm just gonna come out and say this. The most popular opinions should win in a democracy, and if the majority of the population holds certain ideas or values, we shouldn't have a system that makes it harder for those ideas to be expressed.

 

[Narsi]

I'm gonna have to agree with @Captain Hook here. I come from a small state, chances are even if we had a popular vote...my state would be ignored. However IMO the current system is even worse. My state only has 3 electoral votes and we are most certainly not a swing state in any way. Under the electoral college, there is essentially no need for me to go out and vote, because I already the outcome and my vote wont change it. The candidates know it too, and we get about as much attention as a doormat, maybe the occasional visit on the way by to visit more influential places.

Now that doesn't stop me from going out and voting, but I'd like to know my vote had some value, rather than simply being cast into oblivion as its overwhelmed by the majority. I'd also have to agree with some of the other things hook stated, I don't think its proper that we aren't going by a popular vote, and while I understand doing so would disadvantage a lot of people, the current system is exactly without those flaws either.

 

[Baobhan]

But small states under the electoral college system have 'more' power per capita. For example, California has 55 electoral college votes and a population of 38.8 million. Which is 1 Electoral vote per every 705k people. While small states like Idaho have 4 electoral votes and a population of 1.6 million. Which is 1 electoral vote for every 400k people. some small states go as low one per 250k. So it does try to give small states more power so that they aren't meaningless.

Swing states are only a problem because of how state districts are drawn by the legislatures. If they were actually representitive of their voterbase, it wouldn't be an issue. But that's not a problem with the EC as a whole, it's a problem with 1 part of its implementation. Districts should be set in stone, and should probably be dictated municipally. And not all fucked up like this:

And the EC wasn't implemented because of a fear of a lack of information, it was in order to protect against the 'tyranny of the many' that factions would evolve from the people with special interests. They didn't trust a straight democracy, so they added an extra layer. It's a good system with a single in my opinion, rather lethal flaw that needs to be reformed. Being that state legislatures should not be allowed to redraw the districts every 10 years. Cos it's a massive conflict of interests and dictates many elections in advance. It's that system which has allowed swing states to happen.

 

[Lord Potatoe]

And on the line about population centers, I'm just gonna come out and say this. The most popular opinions should win in a democracy, and if the majority of the population holds certain ideas or values, we shouldn't have a system that makes it harder for those ideas to be expressed.

No, our country is not mob rule. Our democracy is set up so that minorities are not squashed by the majority. It is becoming less and less popular to be a conservative, yet our democracy is made so that we still get a say in what happens in our country. The system is fine as is.

 

[Baobhan]

No, our country is not mob rule. Our democracy is set up so that minorities are not squashed by the majority. It is becoming less and less popular to be a conservative, yet our democracy is made so that we still get a say in what happens in our country. The system is fine as is.

Other than that one little change. ^_^

 

[Lord Potatoe]

What change? I don't follow.

 

[The Captain]

No, our country is not mob rule. Our democracy is set up so that minorities are not squashed by the majority. It is becoming less and less popular to be a conservative, yet our democracy is made so that we still get a say in what happens in our country. The system is fine as is.

There is a difference between mob rule and creating a system that stifles popular opinion by giving the minority more power than they should have.

If your ideas aren't popular, change your rhetoric, change your tactics, or change your ideas.

 

[Baobhan]

There is a difference between mob rule and creating a system that stifles popular opinion by giving the minority more power than they should have.

If your ideas aren't popular, change your rhetoric, change your tactics, or change your ideas.

You say that like popular vote doesn't win often. Popular vote, is, in effect, the major driving force behind the electoral process, it's just not the 'only' force. And in some cases, in close races, it's not the deciding factor. There were 5 presidents EVER who didn't win by popular vote, including Donald.

John Quincy Adams in 1824 (Beat Andrew Jackson)
Rutherford B. Hayes in 1867 (Beat Samuel Tildon)
Benjamin Harrison in 1888 (Beat Grover Cleaveland)
George W Bush in 2000 (Beat Al Gore)
And Donald Trump in 2016 (Beat Satan.)

And many of those presidents were rather good. Without J. Adams, america would not be the country that it is today, and he (by some sources) paved the way for the black emancipation.

So the system works in 9/10 scenarios. and it's not necessarily bad when it doesn't work out. And the problem you're worried about with the swing states in politicians only needing to spend resources there, would just be flipped to the population centers on the coasts. So there would be the EXACT same problem.

@Caleb Richardson the change being that state legislatures should not be allowed to re-draw districts every 10 years. Because they're biased. They should be drawn by municipal area. That would effectively kill Gerrymandering as a problem with the system and even out, in my opinion, the only big kink in the electoral college system. Cos then states would go red or blue by demographic, and not by crazy etch-a-sketch schenanigans. lol

 

[The Captain]

You say that like popular vote doesn't win often. Popular vote, is, in effect, the major driving force behind the electoral process, it's just not the 'only' force. And in some cases, in close races, it's not the deciding factor. There were 5 presidents EVER who didn't win by popular vote, including Donald.

John Quincy Adams in 1824 (Beat Andrew Jackson)
Rutherford B. Hayes in 1867 (Beat Samuel Tildon)
Benjamin Harrison in 1888 (Beat Grover Cleaveland)
George W Bush in 2000 (Beat Al Gore)
And Donald Trump in 2016 (Beat Satan.)

And many of those presidents were rather good. Without J. Adams, america would not be the country that it is today, and he (by some sources) paved the way for the black emancipation.

So the system works in 9/10 scenarios. and it's not necessarily bad when it doesn't work out. And the problem you're worried about with the swing states in politicians only needing to spend resources there, would just be flipped to the population centers on the coasts. So there would be the EXACT same problem.

@Caleb Richardson the change being that state legislatures should not be allowed to re-draw districts every 10 years. Because they're biased. They should be drawn by municipal area. That would effectively kill Gerrymandering as a problem with the system and even out, in my opinion, the only big kink in the electoral college system. Cos then states would go red or blue by demographic, and not by crazy etch-a-sketch schenanigans. lol

First off I would like to state that Dick Cheney and Mike Pence's hand-puppets aren't good presidents, but that's an argument for another day.

I'm not arguing that the electoral college has killed the popular vote, but that in a democratic system the popular vote should be the only deciding factor in choosing our leaders. Otherwise the system looses some of its democracy because it gives unpopular opinions a better chance at usurping popular ones without having to be convincing or well-presented. Also, the electoral college renders the minority party in every non-swing state virtually pointless, so not only would it give these people a voice, but it might increase voter turnout if people thought they weren't throwing their ballots onto a bonfire.

 

[Baobhan]

Which i said stems from one particular failure in its implimentation which needs to be reformed, a flat democracy in a place with population centers and sub economies so vastly different, you would have EXACTLY the same issue in a flat democracy. At least with the EC system there is 'some' extra power afforded to the smaller states. Where based on geography alone, their vote can count for more so that they are heard. And also, it allows each state to ALWAYS have representatives in congress. Otherwise, congress would be just made up of people from California, Texas, and NY. Which would be grossly unfair to places like Arkansas and Idaho and EVERY state with populations under the 5-10 million margin. The electoral college system ensures that they ALWAYS have a voice in congress, and ALWAYS have some sway on the election, even if it is small. The only reason swing states exist, is because some states never change alignment. Like NY and CA. And that is, by and large, because their state legislatures get to draw the districts within their states and they were elected by the party who won, so of course they will never change.

Change that 'one' issue, and everything will fall in line. ^_^

If you still disagree, then i guess we disagree, and that's ok. <3

 

[The Captain]

Which i said stems from one particular failure in its implimentation which needs to be reformed, a flat democracy in a place with population centers and sub economies so vastly different, you would have EXACTLY the same issue in a flat democracy. At least with the EC system there is 'some' extra power afforded to the smaller states. Where based on geography alone, their vote can count for more so that they are heard. And also, it allows each state to ALWAYS have representatives in congress. Otherwise, congress would be just made up of people from California, Texas, and NY. Which would be grossly unfair to places like Arkansas and Idaho and EVERY state with populations under the 5-10 million margin. The electoral college system ensures that they ALWAYS have a voice in congress, and ALWAYS have some sway on the election, even if it is small. The only reason swing states exist, is because some states never change alignment. Like NY and CA. And that is, by and large, because their state legislatures get to draw the districts within their states and they were elected by the party who won, so of course they will never change.

Change that 'one' issue, and everything will fall in line. ^_^

If you still disagree, then i guess we disagree, and that's ok. <3

Alright, in the interest of embracing being nice to people you don't agree with, I'll say this.

I only want to remove the electoral college, the senate and all other protections and institutions for minorities can and should stay.

 

[TWD26]

I'm not happy that Donald trump won, but at the end of the day I stand with the electoral college. The coasts have the much larger population centers, thus they have more people who have their own ways of thinking, culture, economy etc. Coming from the Rustbelt we are not seen as glamorous by any means, and I'm sure that the other flyover states would agree. The electoral college gives us equal footing for our voices to be heard instead of having the largest population centers like New York, New Jersey, California, etc. who know nothing about us to decide our fate. But, at the end of the day I am a total states right over the federal government type of person, so I feel that the federal government needs to be vastly stripped as in my opinion has become too big for what the original lawmakers had in mind.

 

[Outlander]

No, our country is not mob rule. Our democracy is set up so that minorities are not squashed by the majority. It is becoming less and less popular to be a conservative, yet our democracy is made so that we still get a say in what happens in our country. The system is fine as is.

That makes no sense though. The vote is supposed to determine who the people want for president. If it's becoming less popular to be a conservative, then a liberal president should be elected, because more people want that. If we say that, because someone is in the minority opinion, their vote counts for more, then the entire system is pointless and democracy as we know it breaks down.

 

[Green Ranger]

I believe that if a single vote in one part of the country doesn't have the same weight as a single vote in another part of the country (which it doesn't, some low population states have IIRC three times the weight of an individual vote in other states), then essentially the whole idea of America being some sort of aspirational pinnacle of democracy and freedom is just plain lies. One vote should mean one vote regardless of where you live.

I also have massive problems with the whole 'winner takes all' approach states have in regards to electors - huge portions of the population do not get to have their voices heard because of the way electors are assigned right now, and that means you're not getting a clear picture in terms of swings in demographics and voting trends, which honestly is just as big a problem as the voter weight imbalances.

Lastly, in terms of inland or rural America not being represented if the US moves to a popular vote? You've got around 40% of the population across the entire country not voting. If you want your candidate to get into the White House then get the fuck out there and vote for them. Margins are always close enough in the US that the final outcome (in a popular vote system) could be easily swung by more people turning out and voting.

 

[Baobhan]

I believe that if a single vote in one part of the country doesn't have the same weight as a single vote in another part of the country (which it doesn't, some low population states have IIRC three times the weight of an individual vote in other states), then essentially the whole idea of America being some sort of aspirational pinnacle of democracy and freedom is just plain lies. One vote should mean one vote regardless of where you live.

I also have massive problems with the whole 'winner takes all' approach states have in regards to electors - huge portions of the population do not get to have their voices heard because of the way electors are assigned right now, and that means you're not getting a clear picture in terms of swings in demographics and voting trends, which honestly is just as big a problem as the voter weight imbalances.

Lastly, in terms of inland or rural America not being represented if the US moves to a popular vote? You've got around 40% of the population across the entire country not voting. If you want your candidate to get into the White House then get the **** out there and vote for them. Margins are always close enough in the US that the final outcome (in a popular vote system) could be easily swung by more people turning out and voting.

Which is why i said the system that allows a corruption like gerrymandering needs to be reformed to a municipal standard and not be allowed to be re-drawn, that way the will of the people 'is' reflected in the college. Then that effect would shock-wave against the swing states thing. This way, people would elect the district leaders 'fairly' which would mean that even if you don't win the presidency, you still have a voice / presence in the house of representatives in congress, right?

Presidential elections, unlike things like the MMP system, are effectively winner take all at the end of the day to win. The system has worked with the popular vote 9 times out of 10 and has been no issue or controversy. So, the system 'does' work. But it is not perfect yet. Though in America, i think they're right to shy from a 'puritanical' democracy in a place like America. I like the idea that your votes go to elect, essentially, an expert who represents you, who knows your area and areas issues as well as your needs and can surrogate for the area in a legal sense. Then, that expert votes for his party / the people he represents equalling one electoral vote. That's his job. And that elective should be relatively bi-partisan. (in a perfect world.) Then the side who has the most seats effectively wins the presidency for the country, but it does not mean that the other side has 'no' sway. They're still there in the House and Senate to criticize and play advocate or devils advocate for their areas.

It's a good system. It's BECAUSE everyone HAS to get a voice in congress that some end up worth more than others. Because a place with 15 people, still gets 1 seat in congress (1 vote) compared to a place with say 1000 people, who may get 10 seats (10 votes). So, i think it's a lesser of 2 evils thing. Would you rather have 'no' voice or 'less' of a voice?

But 100% state legislatures should NOT be able to redraw district lines. Literally, the ONE flaw.