Down with Electoral College!

[Tigranes]

Five times in US history — in 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and, it appears, this year — the Electoral College has handed victory to the loser of the popular vote.

On election night in 2012, when early results seemed to indicate that Mitt Romney would get more votes than President Obama but lose the electoral college (that didn't happen, Obama won both) Trump went on a tweet storm, calling "the electoral college ... a disaster for a democracy."

I concur. Since every state gets at least three electoral votes, there's a bias toward small states. Consider that California has 69 times as many people as Wyoming, but only about 18 times as many electoral votes.

It's bad enough that the most logical and simple one person-one vote rule does not apply in US. The winner take it all rule simply adds insult to injury. Why? Why is it fair? At some point last night the difference in WI was 15 votes. 15 votes! In theory 1 person's vote can hand all 10 electoral votes to the candidate of his liking. What kind of nonsense is this? As the Donald very eloquently twitted in 2012: This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!

It appears Americans chose Clinton, but got Trump. Although vote counting is not over yet, it is likely Clinton will end up with a million or more extra votes — a much larger margin than Al Gore enjoyed in 2000, when he too was denied by the Electoral College even though he nominally had more votes. Compare Joe Lieberman with Dick Cheney and think how likely would US invade Iraq without UN Security Council resolution. Imagine a world 15 years after 9-11 without IS and all the carnage in Middle East. And all this because in 18 century the Founders didn't think ordinary people — even the white male property owners who were the only ones allowed to vote — were informed or responsible enough to choose the president. It's 21st century now. Time to put to rest the peculiar way that America picks its presidents — one not shared by any other democracy in the world.

 

[Arwon]

I'd suggest the bigger concern is the outsized capacity afforded by winner-takes-all college voting for states to influence the result with vote suppression and disenfranchisement tactics (which were numerous this year including in key states like Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin and Michigan), rather than the result not matching the popular vote per se.

If the popular vote were what counted for choosing the president, such tactics would instead only be effective in influencing House and Senate races and state offices. Which isn't perfect either I guess. But, baby steps.

It's also not correct that no other republics use methods of indirect election to choose presidents. It's just that most of the other ones that do indirect election tend to feature ceremonial or relatively non-partisan presidents appointed by parliaments or special advisory bodies like the German Bundesversammlung.

 

[KMRblue1027]

You can get around it without actually abolishing the EC which would be impossible right now. I'd highly suspect this will get more traction in non-swing states after this election which needless to say is a good thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

 

[Birdjaguar]

that link is interesting.

I agree that a popular vote scoring would be best, but...

• Without the EC state totals won't matter and swing states lose clout. Legislatures don't like that.
• The biggest bang for the advertising bucks will be in densely populated areas
• Candidates will focus on the population centers
• The rural/urban cultural divide will exacerbate the existing partisanship. Red states are not likely to want change.

The US is a big place and very difficult to cover in a 4-5 month campaign season (which is too long anyway)

What if you divided the nation up into 10 zones of equal population with 10 EV per zone. Within each zone the EV would be allocated by percent of the popular vote. Every census you redraw the zones. This would allow culturally distinct areas to not be disenfranchised. It's just taking the state district system to a national level. Gerrymandering would be prohibited. It might be more palatable to the non urban areas.

 

[Archbob]

Making it so candidates have to campaign everywhere is the entire point. That way they actually have to make policies and work for the people rather than just pander to 4 or 5 states for a few months every four years.

You still can't just focus on the population centers, you still need the rural vote. The thing is America's largest cities don't contain an overwhelming amount of it's population. Lots of the population lives in small towns or suburban areas. I feel like with popular vote count, the suburban areas will be the deciding factor as it is now since Urban Centers will be blue which will be balanced out by the Red Rural areas leaving the tie-breaker to be the Suburban areas.

 

[Tahuti]

It's not up to us whether or not to the abolish US electoral college. None of us are legislators and some of us - me included - aren't even US citizens. Any discussion on whether or not the electoral college should be abolished is meaningless and will induce a feeling of helplessness.

What we can do is hold a discussion with the goal of understanding why the thing exists in the first place.

 

[Tigranes]

It's also not correct that no other republics use methods of indirect election to choose presidents. It's just that most of the other ones that do indirect election tend to feature ceremonial or relatively non-partisan presidents appointed by parliaments or special advisory bodies like the German Bundesversammlung.

I was obviously referring to the presidential republics, it's silly to compare the office of US president with that of Israel or Germany. Otherwise, election of the government in most parliamentary systems is indirect by definition.

 

[Traitorfish]

It'sz not up to us whether or not to the abolish US electoral college. None of us are legislators and some of us - me included - aren't even US citizens. Any discussion on whether or not the electoral college should be abolished is meaningless and will induce a feeling of helplessness.

I don't know how you expect a civil society to function if nobody but legislators are entitled to discuss legislation.

 

[onejayhawk]

It's all very well to object when the vote goes like it did. I like the fact that low population states have an enhanced voice in something important. There is a name for rule by large population blocs--mobocracy.

J

 

[Traitorfish]

I'd venture that the fifty million people who voted for Trump constitute a large population bloc.

 

[Arwon]

Incidentally, in most countries with an effective presidency this result would be heading to a second round because nobody got an absolute majority of the vote.

Edit: which is actually a huge advantage of the popular vote model. A two round model means there's room for third party runs without zero sum issues and the backbiting that occurrs.

 

[KMRblue1027]

Incidentally, in most countries with an effective presidency this result would be heading to a second round because nobody got an absolute majority of the vote.

Edit: which is actually a huge advantage of the popular vote model. A two round model means there's room for third party runs without zero sum issues and the backbiting that occurrs.

Or you can go to an instant run-off system anything is better then the status quo

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Instant Run Off systems are still horrible compared to Range Voting.

 

[Perfection]

Making it so candidates have to campaign everywhere is the entire point. That way they actually have to make policies and work for the people rather than just pander to 4 or 5 states for a few months every four years.

You still can't just focus on the population centers, you still need the rural vote. The thing is America's largest cities don't contain an overwhelming amount of it's population. Lots of the population lives in small towns or suburban areas. I feel like with popular vote count, the suburban areas will be the deciding factor as it is now since Urban Centers will be blue which will be balanced out by the Red Rural areas leaving the tie-breaker to be the Suburban areas.

But candidates don't campaign everywhere. Trump never set foot on the West Coast because he knew he couldn't win a state there.

 

[Archbob]

But now he might if it was just based on popular vote because he doesn't have to win a state to get some votes.

 

[PhroX]

I have to admit, I do wonder what the reaction of those defending the Electoral College would be if the electors decided to vote for Hillary over Trump....

 

[really]

I say keep it.

The popular vote (in this election) is very close and would result in a lot of arguments.

The EC vote is unambiguous.

 

[Bootstoots]

Also, rural areas and small towns really would still get attention by presidential candidates. They may not be a huge slice of the population (20 or 25%, IIRC), but that's still a very large group of people whose votes could easily decide an election. Also, keeping in mind that a lot of politicians come from rural states and congressional districts, and that those people are often presidential candidates, it's not at all unlikely that someone who actually cares about rural areas would end up being elected.

The attention would come in the form of small-town events and photo-ops in various rural places around the country, rather than just the ones in swing/early primary states like Iowa and New Hampshire. No candidate visits Idaho or Kentucky or Kansas or Vermont right now, unless they have a primary there.

 

[timtofly]

I'd venture that the fifty million people who voted for Trump constitute a large population bloc.

Yes, most of the US.

The side that won the popular vote was more concetrated.

 

[Tigranes]

I say keep it.

The popular vote (in this election) is very close and would result in a lot of arguments.

The EC vote is unambiguous.

Except that it's more likely to get a tie with EC 538 votes vs a tie with 153 million currently registered voters. Currently, if neither candidate gets a majority of the 538 electoral votes, the election for President is decided in the House of Representatives, with each state delegation having one vote. A majority of states (26) is needed to win. Senators would elect the Vice-President, with each Senator having a vote. Sub-optimal, I say...