Abolishing Electoral College?

[Patine]

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.

With all due respect, the American people, culture, and values are very different today then they were in 1783.

 

[JPetroski]

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?

It can be changed and has been frequently. There's an amendment process to do just that. It can be a slow process when not everyone agrees that one side is omnipotent, which bothers people who think that everyone who disagrees with them is scum.

We can actually move pretty fast on just about everything when people generally agree on something. Americans are very formidable when united.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I have no qualms labelling those that actively seek to prevent, frustrate or damage attempts to give minorities the same rights and dignity afforded to white, straight or cis people regardless of class, as scum because that is what they are, attempts to downplay or pivot from that fact do nothing but give cover and ammunition to people who are more than willing to enable other people's suffering.

They're certainly not neutral and they're definitely not good.

 

[Bugfatty300]

The USA used to change the constitution every decade or so. Hell it really isn't even the first constitution. This quasi-religious aurora and reverence that surrounds it is relatively new I think.

 

[Patine]

I have no qualms labelling those that actively seek to prevent, frustrate or damage attempts to give minorities the same rights and dignity afforded to white, straight or cis people regardless of class, as scum because that is what they are, attempts to downplay or pivot from that fact do nothing but give cover and ammunition to people who are more than willing to enable other people's suffering.

They're certainly not neutral and they're definitely not good.

But I can't help but notice you've been very parsimonious with nasty labels for the MANY, MANY types of horrible, monstrous, and atrocious people all around the world, and throughout history, who DON'T match specific description.

 

[Arakhor]

Let's not distract the thread already.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

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.

I would say "appoint one based on input from the citizenry." The fact that every citizen's input isn't weighted exactly the same is a known element in the process, and it was included in the process for a reason that was valid at the time and still is. Yes, very closely contested states that then go all in for their winner is also an element of the process. I personally might not be fully in agreement with that element all the time either, but that doesn't change my initial stance the all of the angst about the process is focusing on a symptom. The problem is, and remains, that a significant portion of the electorate is mind bendingly ignorant and self destructive. If the process gamed out slightly differently so that that portion of the electorate were kept properly in check the symptoms would not be getting much scrutiny at all, but we would still have the problem.

What do we do about a significant portion of the population that votes based on "well, this will screw me but it will screw <perceived evil fellow citizens> faster and harder, so yeah I'm for it"? What do we do about a significant portion of the population that votes based on "I'm on my way to vote for ...oh, shiny!!! I guess I'll vote for him instead"? What do we do about a significant portion of the population that is completely dissatisfied with the constitution under which they are voting and is committed to subversion pending abandonment of it?

 

[Zkribbler]

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?

To amend the Constitution requires a 3/4 vote of the states. Small states will never give up their stranglehold on the Presidency.

 

[Patine]

To amend the Constitution requires a 3/4 vote of the states. Small states will never give up their stranglehold on the Presidency.

But what about writing a new one entirely? After all, the majority of modern sovereign nations, and over half the U.S. States themselves, have gone through more than one whole Constitution in their history. Maybe some REAL renewal of thinking around governance and how things work in the modern day and age, and not just the timid tinkering of amendments is what's in order.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

But what about writing a new one entirely? After all, the majority of modern sovereign nations, and over half the U.S. States themselves, have gone through more than one whole Constitution in their history. Maybe some REAL renewal of thinking around governance and how things work in the modern day and age, and not just the timid tinkering of amendments is what's in order.

I personally agree, but as @Zkribbler said there would be a "we will never allow that change!" contingent for virtually every proposal that could be made. In the current atmosphere of partisan conflict no one has the power to change anything and everyone has the power to prevent <them> from making any changes.

 

[Arwon]

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.

It doesn't even clearly do that. Wyoming, Hawaii, Vermont and North Dakota have no influence over the presidential race where Ohio and Florida have massively outsized influence.

 

[Berzerker]

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.

None of the above wins elections

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

Should we do away with the Bill of Rights too?

 

[Arwon]

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?

It's just typical federation areas. The Canadian and Australian federal constitutions are also fairly hard to amend for the same reason - lots of polities have to agree.

Though admittedly we don't have the quasi spiritual elevation of the authors of the document that the US does.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It doesn't even clearly do that. Wyoming, Hawaii, Vermont and North Dakota have no influence over the presidential race where Ohio and Florida have massively outsized influence.

Mathematically, a Wyoming voter has twice the input that a California voter has. Voters per electoral college seat is the variable.

 

[Arwon]

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.

There are other countries primarily composed of the descendents of colonising populations which change and amend constitutions more frequently (Argentina and Brazil spring to mind), this isn't really an answer.

I think even in the US, there were more amendments in eras when it had a higher foreign born population than it's current 12 percent. For example between 1909 and 1933 there were 6 amendments including the repeal of alcohol prohibition, and in that era the foreign born population was around 15%.

If high foreign born populations made a country cling more tightly to its constitutional status quo you would probably expect to see more amendments in the much lower migration 50s to 90s, when there were 4 amendments in the 60s to 1971, and none since except the Congress salaries one.

 

[Zardnaar]

I have no qualms labelling those that actively seek to prevent, frustrate or damage attempts to give minorities the same rights and dignity afforded to white, straight or cis people regardless of class, as scum because that is what they are, attempts to downplay or pivot from that fact do nothing but give cover and ammunition to people who are more than willing to enable other people's suffering.

They're certainly not neutral and they're definitely not good.

Do you play D&D by any chance?

 

[Zardnaar]

Well the GoP might poo the bed. They either have to moderate long term or get electorate reform.

 

[Arwon]

Mathematically, a Wyoming voter has twice the input that a California voter has. Voters per electoral college seat is the variable.

Yeah but that's not really influence, that's just contributing to which other states are the important swing states. You've net effect of Wyoming is to make it slightly more likely that one more swing state needs to go Democrat. Maybe it makes the threshold stare be Florida instead of Ohio or something.

You've gotta be in the random swing states themselves to really have direct influence.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yeah but that's not really influence, that's just contributing to which other states are the important swing states. You've net effect of Wyoming is to make it slightly more likely that one more swing state needs to go Democrat. Maybe it makes the threshold stare be Florida instead of Ohio or something.

You've gotta be in the random swing states themselves to really have direct influence.

Well, "the voters in the swing states are the ones with real power" is always a constant but which states are the swing states changes over time, so that constant isn't really constant. The math, however, is immutable. The design purpose of the electoral college, just like the Senate, is to empower the citizens of the smaller states relative to the citizens of the larger states, because there was a perceived imbalance tilting the other way that "needed" to be corrected. Is it a perfect correction? Probably not. But again, the real issues are masked behind this question of process. If you have a whole lot of voters driven by maliciousness, or just plain ignorance, there is no fixing of the process that is going to change that.

 

[Arwon]

Well, "the voters in the swing states are the ones with real power" is always a constant but which states are the swing states changes over time, so that constant isn't really constant. The math, however, is immutable. The design purpose of the electoral college, just like the Senate, is to empower the citizens of the smaller states relative to the citizens of the larger states, because there was a perceived imbalance tilting the other way that "needed" to be corrected. Is it a perfect correction? Probably not. But again, the real issues are masked behind this question of process. If you have a whole lot of voters driven by maliciousness, or just plain ignorance, there is no fixing of the process that is going to change that.

That's why I called it a weighted dice roll