Abolishing Electoral College?

[Zardnaar]

So a few people are hot to abolish the electoral college in the USA. But Tex's us argueably purple and with trends in Kentucky, Virginia and even Mississippi of all places a lot if those red states are heading towards purple.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...0fa486-f116-11e9-8693-f487e46784aa_story.html

Trump won by 80k votes in 3 states. 40k people change their minds he is goneburger.

This is ignoring places like Arizona, Florida and other purple states.

If the GoP lose Texas they're basically done. I don't expect this to happen 2020 but if the GoP is struggling in red states that's not good for them.

Texas wasn't projected to go purple until 2028 or 2032. Doesn't mean you get complacent, Dems got Florida but the GoP recaptured it.

But if the GoP self destructs short term or Trump accelerates existing trends how many liberals will still want to dump the EC? Long-term the GoP might be better off with proportional representation as they will need those votes in Texas, California, New York etc. Assuming they have any left post Trump.

 

[Farm Boy]

Liberal isn't the right term. The power of the EC is geographic like states are geographic, so its support is tracked better by the interests of denizens*. That its relatively minor margin of power has actually proved impactful twice in 20 is stunning and speaks to a concentration of appeal and catering.

*and yes, that comes with a frank disbelief in many positional statements

 

[rah]

Keep it around, within an election or two, it will not favor the Republicans ever again. It will take a great candidate for them to win.

 

[Arwon]

It's a modest rural malapportionment with a weighted dice roll thrown in regarding which votes (ie Ohio and Florida) actually end up mattering. Which is pretty silly for electing one person to one office.

 

[EgonSpengler]

It's [...] pretty silly for electing one person to one office.

This is my feeling, too. There's little danger of the 'tyranny of the majority' in eliminating the electoral college. I don't know if I fully believe in the 'the wisdom of the crowds' but we've had two US Presidents elected recently without a plurality of the vote, and both of them have been epic, all-time disasters. Of course that could be a coincidence - two is an awfully small sample-size - but it's still a harsh indictment of the system that appointed them, imo.

 

[Hygro]

This is my feeling, too. There's little danger of the 'tyranny of the majority' in eliminating the electoral college. I don't know if I fully believe in the 'the wisdom of the crowds' but we've had two US Presidents elected recently without a plurality of the vote, and both of them have been epic, all-time disasters. Of course that could be a coincidence - two is an awfully small sample-size - but it's still a harsh indictment of the system that appointed them, imo.

Super exactly.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Addressing the symptom, not the problem. Yes, the electoral college, just like the senate, tilts political power towards the smaller states to compensate for the larger states having more political power generally. Does it establish a perfect balance? Probably not, but it is probably more of a balance than we would have without it. The problem isn't giving smaller states a little bit more of a voice, the problem is that we have allowed the smaller states to be overrun with ignorance.

 

[Gorbles]

Not loving the "people only want it gone because it resulted in Trump" argument in the OP. I've seen plenty of sentiment along the lines of nomatter what result occurs, the EC is flawed and should be abolished. No need for any kind of "liberal" gotcha.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Addressing the symptom, not the problem. Yes, the electoral college, just like the senate, tilts political power towards the smaller states to compensate for the larger states having more political power generally. Does it establish a perfect balance? Probably not, but it is probably more of a balance than we would have without it. The problem isn't giving smaller states a little bit more of a voice, the problem is that we have allowed the smaller states to be overrun with ignorance.

I haven't looked back at 2000, but the problem in 2016 wasn't (just) the smaller states. Two of the four states with a margin of victory under 1% were Michigan (~10m people) and Pennsylvania (~13m). Florida (~21m) was also very close. Another problem is the winner-takes-all-electors system so many states have. I disagree that the balance is better with it than without it. As already pointed out, the Presidency is a single person (unless you wanted to do something like make the Cabinet elected positions rather than appointed), so there's no easy way to split the baby; either they're elected by a plurality of the voters or they're not. The Electoral College is not a system to elect a President, it's a system to appoint one, with some input from the citizenry.

 

[Lexicus]

It's a matter of democratic principle that the President should not be elected by fewer voters than voted for the President's opponent in the election, ever.

 

[rah]

The process wasn't designed by democratic principles. So I don't see the relevance of your complaint.

 

[Lexicus]

The process wasn't designed by democratic principles. So I don't see the relevance of your complaint.

The relevance of my complaint is that the US government should work according to democratic principles.

 

[rah]

You are entitled to your opinion.

 

[Arakhor]

You are entitled to your opinion.

That post carries with it the obvious implicit suggestion that you disagree. Why's that?

 

[rah]

The electoral college was designed as a compromise so that the US would actually exist. I can appreciate that. And I believe that the framework includes everything needed to FIX/IMPROVE it. Each state can choose how best to do that. Proportional votes could resolve the issue without eliminating it.
The US is a federation of states so the states should determine themselves how best to do it. But that is just my opinion.

 

[Gorbles]

Designed as a compromise * at the time.

Maybe some Americans can clear this up for me. Why is there this seemingly fervent belief that the rules as laid down as so sacrosanct (despite nominally being separated from theocracy) that they can't be revoked or dismantled? This isn't me talking about the Constitution per see, it just seems to apply to literally everything in America (including the EC). Why? Why assume that the way it was is the way it should forever be, barring some minor forms of revision and / or enhancement?

 

[Broken_Erika]

Designed as a compromise * at the time.

Maybe some Americans can clear this up for me. Why is there this seemingly fervent belief that the rules as laid down as so sacrosanct (despite nominally being separated from theocracy) that they can't be revoked or dismantled? This isn't me talking about the Constitution per see, it just seems to apply to literally everything in America (including the EC). Why? Why assume that the way it was is the way it should forever be, barring some minor forms of revision and / or enhancement?

Because they were created by Jesus himself. Obviously.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Designed as a compromise * at the time.

Maybe some Americans can clear this up for me. Why is there this seemingly fervent belief that the rules as laid down as so sacrosanct (despite nominally being separated from theocracy) that they can't be revoked or dismantled? This isn't me talking about the Constitution per see, it just seems to apply to literally everything in America (including the EC). Why? Why assume that the way it was is the way it should forever be, barring some minor forms of revision and / or enhancement?

The current system favors the rich and elite and there is a deep vested interest in manipulating the population to be against any and all political change.

 

[Commodore]

Designed as a compromise * at the time.

Maybe some Americans can clear this up for me. Why is there this seemingly fervent belief that the rules as laid down as so sacrosanct (despite nominally being separated from theocracy) that they can't be revoked or dismantled? This isn't me talking about the Constitution per see, it just seems to apply to literally everything in America (including the EC). Why? Why assume that the way it was is the way it should forever be, barring some minor forms of revision and / or enhancement?

Because as a nation formed by immigrants we don't have all the traditional things that form the identity of other nations. The Constitution is not just the framework of our government, it is also the core of who we are as a nation. To change the Constitution is to also change who we are at the most fundamental level because it codifies the principles our nation was founded on.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

No offence but the nation was founded on genocide, slavery and rape.

Times have changed and so should the constitution, I mean heck some of the founding fathers didn't even agree whether Germans counted as white people!

It should be an evolving document, not some old scroll that we barely change.