Electoral college

[MasterM64]

I assume someone has already mentioned the things I am about to say, but I think the electoral college has a purpose and should stay. It balances the representation of the people/electorate just like why we have the House of Representatives and the Senate. The House represents higher populace states more while the Senate levels the playing field amongst state representation so all voices are heard regardless of where their constituents live.

If the Electoral College does change though, they could do it by congressional district instead of a "winner takes all" approach like most states have it currently if representation is of concern. The only issue with doing it by congressional district though is that it could encourage corrupt practices like gerrymandering more which would defeat the purpose of proper representation of the people.

The reason why the U.S. Constitution is the world's longest living/used government document is because it was designed to be balanced to prevent one ideology or power from taking over real easily. Gradual change is far better than drastic change when it comes to the unity of the people. Sure the Constitution needed changes after the fact like allowing women to vote and abolishing slavery (the founding fathers had to compromise on this latter item to even get the Constitution ratified knowing that it would have to be addressed in the future and that it would be addressed better by a unified people), but the general thought process of balance still is the core principle.

 

[-Apples-]

I assume someone has already mentioned the things I am about to say, but I think the electoral college has a purpose and should stay. It balances the representation of the people/electorate just like why we have the House of Representatives and the Senate. The House represents higher populace states more while the Senate levels the playing field amongst state representation so all voices are heard regardless of where their constituents live.

If the Electoral College does change though, they could do it by congressional district instead of a "winner takes all" approach like most states have it currently if representation is of concern. The only issue with doing it by congressional district though is that it could encourage corrupt practices like gerrymandering more which would defeat the purpose of proper representation of the people.

The reason why the U.S. Constitution is the world's longest living/used government document is because it was designed to be balanced to prevent one ideology or power from taking over real easily. Gradual change is far better than drastic change when it comes to the unity of the people. Sure the Constitution needed changes after the fact like allowing women to vote and abolishing slavery (the founding fathers had to compromise on this latter item to even get the Constitution ratified knowing that it would have to be addressed in the future and that it would be addressed better by a unified people), but the general thought process of balance still is the core principle.

This is the best argument I’ve seen on this thread. It’s pretty odd that it handed the presidency to a white man when we were going to have a female president, but instead, it denied presidency to a corrupt politician that pulled the strings to our nation when Bill Clinton was president. Yes, it’s one thing if you have bad ideas on how to run a nation, but to revise constitutional principles like packing the court, silencing the minority party, or abolishing the legislative filibuster to push these ideas through is very dangerous and should never be done. If the majority of the states (like 30 or more) do not support one idea, then it means that our nation really doesn’t want it. Granted, sometimes, a radical idea to an issue is good for the nation (like the Protestant Reformation after centuries of abuse of power from the Catholic churches and sitting down in a bar as a team to disrupt service when the bar doesn’t allow minorities to enter (which was a brilliant idea during the Civil Rights Era)), but there are ideas that are always bad no matter what.

 

[daringred_]

If the majority of the states (like 30 or more) do not support one idea, then it means that our nation really doesn’t want it.

i'm so sorry if i sound dumb or ignorant etc. lmao. again, not from the US and despite all the reading i've done i'm still not entirely sure how the EC works.

i can't do math so correct me if i'm wrong but pretty sure the majority of the states doesn't equal majority of the population or the "nation". for instance if all of a smaller state votes blue but only just over half of a bigger state votes red, blue could still have more voters but be drowned out because the red bigger state awards more EC votes to its chosen candidate, no?

Post automatically merged: Nov 7, 2020

unless of course EC points are the same for every state or based on how much of a state's population voted X as opposed to the state's population as a whole because if you've got a state that votes, say, 51%/49%, and you give the former candidate all the points for that state it's hardly accurate since almost half the population didn't vote for them.

 

[nintendofan85]

This is the best argument I’ve seen on this thread. It’s pretty odd that it handed the presidency to a white man when we were going to have a female president, but instead, it denied presidency to a corrupt politician that pulled the strings to our nation when Bill Clinton was president. Yes, it’s one thing if you have bad ideas on how to run a nation, but to revise constitutional principles like packing the court, silencing the minority party, or abolishing the legislative filibuster to push these ideas through is very dangerous and should never be done. If the majority of the states (like 30 or more) do not support one idea, then it means that our nation really doesn’t want it. Granted, sometimes, a radical idea to an issue is good for the nation (like the Protestant Reformation after centuries of abuse of power from the Catholic churches and sitting down in a bar as a team to disrupt service when the bar doesn’t allow minorities to enter (which was a brilliant idea during the Civil Rights Era)), but there are ideas that are always bad no matter what.

I wouldn't agree at all that Hillary Clinton "pulled strings", or that court packing and ending filibusters are a bad thing, but okay...

Post automatically merged: Nov 7, 2020

The founding fathers established our system of government in a way that true democracy would never be how our leaders are elected. They thought that true democracy was just as evil as despotism. Under "true democracy," with a popular vote, you are essentially living under mob rule; the 51% will always outvote the 49%, which can lead to some pretty disastrous effects when the rights of the 49% are on the line.
As mentioned before by Kaioin, the popular vote can still be won with a minority of the population--one party with 28%, one party with 27%, and the rest of the vote split across various third parties.
Pure, unfiltered democracy sounds nice and representative on paper, but would you really want to live under that system? The truth is, we need elements of a republic in order to uphold the rights of the citizens.

Kind of interesting that this is your view defending the electoral college, saying it prevents pluralities from being elected, when quite literally Woodrow Wilson in 1912 got an extremely high amount of electoral votes yet barely got above 40% of the vote.

Post automatically merged: Nov 7, 2020

Ranked choice voting helps to avoid the problem of a candidate winning with minority support and would give third parties a legitimate chance to build support without making people "waste" their votes. Unfortunately ranked choice voting is very rare in the U.S. since the one thing Republicans and Democrats can agree on is not giving third parties any chance of winning.

In the very least, I wish we could use a system like France, Brazil, or Argentina (I believe I may have said this before on this thread) where we elect presidents by a two-round system. Again, no other democracy uses the electoral college besides the United States.

 

[eseamir]

I moved to new zealand fourteen years ago and I personally think the system we have here is way more representative of allowing every vote to count (for those of you who don't know, we have a government made of several political parties who all have a certain number of "seats" they can fill with their representatives based on the % of votes they received overall). the fact that in america you're shoehorned into one of two main parties means that you're almost constantly having to choose between the "lesser of two evils" because you're basically never going to actually have a party you agree with fully

additionally, I feel like the electoral college is a good idea in theory because it tries to even out things based on population but the fact that if you live in a lower population state your vote is essentially worth less than those who live in a state that ultimately has more EC points and therefore more power when it comes to actually assigning a new ruling political power makes it feel unfair in a way that I can't really properly explain

 

[Red Cat]

additionally, I feel like the electoral college is a good idea in theory because it tries to even out things based on population but the fact that if you live in a lower population state your vote is essentially worth less than those who live in a state that ultimately has more EC points and therefore more power when it comes to actually assigning a new ruling political power makes it feel unfair in a way that I can't really properly explain

Actually, the EC does the opposite. Small population states have more electoral votes per capita than large states. California has about 37.68 million people and gets 55 electoral votes which works out to 1 EV per 685000 people while Wyoming has about 578000 people and gets 3 EV which is 1 EV per 193000 people. The real reason why your vote doesn't really count if you live in either of these states is because neither are competitive. Biden is currently winning about 65% of the vote in California and that number will probably increase as more votes are counted there while Trump is winning 70% of the vote in Wyoming. There are only a handful of states that are competitive and the winner of the last two elections have boiled down to 3 states: Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. That's it. The other 47 states are either noncompetitive or don't matter enough to decide the winner of the presidential election.

Deciding the winner by the national popular vote isn't perfect, but it would at least force candidates to try to win over voters from coast to coast and everything in between. It would favor more urban areas, but there are still a lot of votes collectively in all of the rural areas. Republicans may be able to improve their performance in large cities if their candidates had a real incentive to visit places like NY, LA, and Chicago while Democrats would not be able to just write off rural areas in middle America. We'd probably see more centrist candidates since margins would matter instead of just trying to hit a small plurality in key states. I think a national popular vote is the fairest way to determine the president since every person's vote should count equally whether they live on a farm or in a high-rise apartment. The current system makes no sense because for example you can live in Philadelphia and be one of the most coveted voters in the country, or you can live a few miles east in New Jersey and no one cares how you vote in a presidential election.

 

[RedPanda]

I strongly believe that every vote should have the same value. Right now you have candiates focusing all their attention on the swing states, while the vast majority of the population gets ignored because their votes are more predictable. And the electoral college system, as it currently stands, gives more weight to the republican party than they really deserve based on the voting habits of the population as a whole.

 

[angelcat621]

Has anyone seen this yet?:

Map: These are the states that have agreed to a plan to replace the Electoral College

Colorado became the latest state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, now one of 15 states and D.C.

www.nbcnews.com

Interesting if this will stick.
Thoughts anyone?