Electoral College- time to get rid of it?

[Recovering Republican]

Should we get rid of the electoral college.

I say yes.

Besides the possibility of electing someone who lost the popular vote (which has happened four times since the current system was set up by the 12th Amendment) it distorts our democracy.

It puts too much emphasis on "Swing states" while ignoring the rest of the country.

For instance, if you live in IL, you can pretty much expect to be ignored this election. President Obama is from IL, and if he's really seriously worried about losign that state, his re-election is a lost cause. So he won't spend any time here and neither will his inevitable Republican opponent.

But they will spend a lot of time in Iowa. Talking about Ethanol which nearly everyone agrees now is a bad idea.

[Marley23]

I've been saying the electoral college should be scrapped since before I could vote. Someone's got to listen to reason one of these years, right?

Right?

[BigT]

It can be disestablished once people stop showing loyalty to their state. It's pretty much a demonstration of the concept of federalism, with the states having power, not just the people.

Anyways, removing it is overkill. You'll remove much of the problems if you just vote via apportionment rather than winner-take-all. But I believe that's would have to be done on a state by state basis.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I've been saying the electoral college should be scrapped since before I could vote. Someone's got to listen to reason one of these years, right?

Right?

Never bet on Reason unless it's a horse at Arlington.

My guess is that it won't be gotten rid of because you need 38 states to ratify an amendment to the constitution.

A lot of these smaller states that only have 3-5 electoral votes have a lot more influence than they would otherwise.

There's also the question of, what do you replace it with.

The Two-Party system largely exists because there's an electoral college.

I think the best solution might be a system like France has, and a lot of cities. Open election, and if no one gets 50%+1, you have a run off between the top two vote getters. I think it would do a lot to move politics in this country back to the middle.

[amanset]

Speaking as a foreigner, I can't for the life of me understand why you ever had it.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Never bet on Reason unless it's a horse at Arlington.

My guess is that it won't be gotten rid of because you need 38 states to ratify an amendment to the constitution.

A lot of these smaller states that only have 3-5 electoral votes have a lot more influence than they would otherwise.

I agree with you. It's a bad system, but to get rid of it, you would need a significant number of people to vote against their own interests. The heavy emphasis on Iowa and New Hampshire in the primaries has the same distorting effect on politics and I think people in those states would admit their states just go first because of tradition. But they're not going to get rid of that system either.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by amanset

Speaking as a foreigner, I can't for the life of me understand why you ever had it.

I think the concern was that they didn't want America to be like Europe. A country like France or England that is dominated by one big city. So a lot of the rules put in there was to make sure everyone had kind of an equal say in things.

For instance, the President and Vice President can't be from the same state. So Darth Cheney had to pretend he was from Wyoming even though he was living in Texas at the time. They put in a Senate to balance against the House.

I also think they really thought Congress would pick the president most of the time. That idea came to an end in the 1800 election, when Aaron Burr tried to pull a fast one and get Congress to make him President.

You have to keep in mind, at that time, the franchise was limited to property owning white males.

[Bill Door]

Here's what I think about that.

[Captain Amazing]

I say keep it, for a few reasons. The first is that it's tradition. We've had it since the beginning, and it's part of what makes the country what it is.

Second, the electoral college system (and the Senate) means that the government has to at least pretend to care about issues affecting rural people and rural areas. Get rid of it, and politicians are going to spend a lot of time dealing with stuff that affects big city dwellers, but not very much time worrying about issues that don't, which is fine if you live in New York City, but not so much if you live in Boise, Cheyenne or Montpelier.

Finally, even though this is farfetched and will probably never happen, it provides a safeguard. In the most prosaic sense, if a candidate dies between election day and the day the college votes, there's a nice and easy way to deal with that. I could probably come up with more fantastic scenarios regarding some demagogue winning popular support and the electoral college being the only thing stopping him from becoming President, but, while it would be fun to write, it's not too likely to happen.

Originally Posted by amanset

Speaking as a foreigner, I can't for the life of me understand why you ever had it.

Like so much that's confusing about American government, it's the result of a compromise. When the Constitution was being written, there were those delegates who said, "The President should be picked by popular vote. We're a Republic who fought for the right to choose our own leaders." Then the other side said, "Please, have you SEEN some of the population? They can't be trusted to decide what to have for dinner. Let Congress choose the President." So somebody said "Look, lets just have each state choose electors, based on their population, to decide who should be President, and however the states want to pick the electors, that's fine. If a majority of electors can't come up with one person, Congress will just do it. That sound good to everyone?", and the rest of the Convention came back with, "Eh, ok.", "Sounds good", and "What about my plan of having candidates fight to the death?". So, they came up with a compromise that everyone could agree with, except of course for Rufus King, who was even more miffed when they turned down his idea for a third House of Congress to be called, "The House of Slaughter."

Anyway, that story is mostly true, except for the parts about Rufus King being an inhuman monster who loved blood sports. He was actually a humble, intelligent and peaceful man who was committed to diplomacy during his time as Ambassador to Great Britain and a fierce and tireless opponent of slavery and advocate for independence of the colonies of Central and South America.

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

My guess is that it won't be gotten rid of because you need 38 states to ratify an amendment to the constitution.

Not really. There's currently a law passed in eight states to have their electoral votes go to the winner of the popular vote if states representing more then half the electoral vote total pass similar legislation. While technically this doesn't abolish the electoral college, it would make it meaningless. The winner of the popular vote would always win the electoral college vote.

New York and CA, with their 84 electoral votes seem like they'll pass the same law soon, which would put it more then half-way to the total it needs, so I actually suspect we'll see the end of the electoral college as a meaningful institution within my life time.

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

I think the concern was that they didn't want America to be like Europe. A country like France or England that is dominated by one big city. So a lot of the rules put in there was to make sure everyone had kind of an equal say in things.

Right. Not only were the founders infallible, they also possessed the ability to see the future. They could tell that Europe would one day fall to socialism, so the only way to nip it in the bud was to as little like Europe as possible. Even though the French Revolution was still years away, they knew that IF the French commoners ever got a say in their government, then Paris would have a disproportionate say and that would be a VERY BAD THING.

Back to the matter at hand, I'm opposed to a change. I don't want states that use shenanigans to prevent certain people from voting to have any effect on a national popular vote total that means something. No matter how corrupt a Blackwell was, the worst he could do was foul up Ohio's electoral votes.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

I say keep it, for a few reasons. The first is that it's tradition. We've had it since the beginning, and it's part of what makes the country what it is.

This is the least compelling reason I could imagine. The Constitution provides for some "traditions" that we find very distasteful today. I hope I don't have to name them. It's worth understanding why the electoral college exists, as you discussed, but that doesn't mean it's necessary today.

Second, the electoral college system (and the Senate) means that the government has to at least pretend to care about issues affecting rural people and rural areas. Get rid of it, and politicians are going to spend a lot of time dealing with stuff that affects big city dwellers, but not very much time worrying about issues that don't, which is fine if you live in New York City, but not so much if you live in Boise, Cheyenne or Montpelier.

I think the electoral college causes politicians to pay less attention to cities relative to their importance. How is that a good thing? The truth is that most people live in cities and suburbs - depending on how you define them, it can be a big majority or an overwhelming majority - and the electoral college system undervalues their votes. If you don't believe me, consider farm subsidies or ethanol. And if one party consistently ignored all the rural areas, they'd be giving away votes over time. Politicians generally don't want to do that. They'll go where the contested votes are.

Finally, even though this is farfetched and will probably never happen, it provides a safeguard. In the most prosaic sense, if a candidate dies between election day and the day the college votes, there's a nice and easy way to deal with that.

This is a silly argument. It would be easy to pass a law that would deal with that situation.

[Gedd]

I think the best alternative that makes it “more fair” while staying with the Electoral College layout would be to change it to where votes are cast based on the popular vote in each House of Representatives district. You drop 100 votes in the EC because you ignore the Senators (make that 102 votes with the District of Columbia) and have 436. Each state (and DC) gets at least one, with California at the top having 55. Each vote is still “worth” about the same percentage of the population, and you still have a group of electors casting the votes for other people. You would still have the possibility of wining the popular voting and losing the election, but it is a lot less likely to happen.

With the votes directly representing each congressional district you don’t win the state as a whole. You will still have candidates skipping the Dakotas and Montana on their trips though; you simply reach more people when you give a talk in Ohio. They will still need to consider where in the state to visit though.

Looking back to 2008, with this system Ohio would have gone 10 to McCain and 8 to Obama, even though Obama had the popular vote. (Cite) Hmm . . . may direct popular vote is the way to go.

[Giles]

Originally Posted by Gedd

I think the best alternative that makes it “more fair” while staying with the Electoral College layout would be to change it to where votes are cast based on the popular vote in each House of Representatives district. ...

Then why not make the House of Representatives the electoral college? It's chosen by popular vote in each district: you don't need to hold a separate vote for the Electoral College.

(Yes, it would make the system look a lot more like the Westminster system -- but not the same, because the President would not be a member of the House.)

[Gedd]

Originally Posted by Giles

Then why not make the House of Representatives the electoral college? It's chosen by popular vote in each district: you don't need to hold a separate vote for the Electoral College.

(Yes, it would make the system look a lot more like the Westminster system -- but not the same, because the President would not be a member of the House.)

That works for me. You just need to add someone for the District of Columbia since they don't have a Representative but still get 3 Electoral College votes.

[RTFirefly]

If we didn't have the Electoral College in the first place, who in their right mind would propose such an idiotic device as an improvement?

Yeah, of course we should scrap the damned thing. The difficulty is in actually doing so.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I think the electoral college causes politicians to pay less attention to cities relative to their importance. How is that a good thing? The truth is that most people live in cities and suburbs - depending on how you define them, it can be a big majority or an overwhelming majority - and the electoral college system undervalues their votes. If you don't believe me, consider farm subsidies or ethanol. And if one party consistently ignored all the rural areas, they'd be giving away votes over time. Politicians generally don't want to do that. They'll go where the contested votes are.

Because cities tend to get over represented in our system as it is. I grew up in and have recently moved back to Upstate NY, and the city dominates New York State politics, and New York State statewide elections. We're lucky that we have Gilibrand now, who's from up here and cares about the area, but with the exception of her, Moynahan, Clinton, and to a lesser extent Schumer, upstate largely gets ignored by New York Senators. You know the last time somebody from upstate was elected governor? Nathan Miller, in 1921.

People in rural and smaller areas need a voice, and a system that only cares about population will deny them that.

[BobLibDem]

Discover Magazinehad a pretty good article about it. We make fun of the EC, but the alternative is chaos. Remember Florida 2000? Suppose we had a repeat but on the national scale. Then you've got 50 different states + DC recounting all of their votes, some of which are a little more scrupulous than others. What the EC does is take all these potential elections that might be within the margin of error and give a result that is well outside the margin of error.

That being said, I would favor a system whereby the two EVs that represent the senators go to the statewide winner and those that represent the House are awarded to the candidate carrying that House district.

[Chronos]

Quoth Recovering Republican:

I think the concern was that they didn't want America to be like Europe. A country like France or England that is dominated by one big city. So a lot of the rules put in there was to make sure everyone had kind of an equal say in things.

The reason London dominates the UK is precisely because everyone has an equal voice. Try to change that, and you're trying to give every place an equal voice instead.

Quoth BobLibDem:

Discover Magazinehad a pretty good article about it. We make fun of the EC, but the alternative is chaos. Remember Florida 2000? Suppose we had a repeat but on the national scale. Then you've got 50 different states + DC recounting all of their votes, some of which are a little more scrupulous than others. What the EC does is take all these potential elections that might be within the margin of error and give a result that is well outside the margin of error.

Florida 2000 was that on a national scale. As a direct result of our system, we had a situation where dispute over the votes in a couple of counties swung the entire national election. If we went by the national popular vote total instead, problems like that would be so rare as to be practically nonexistent. When mathematicians extol the virtues of the Electoral College as giving everyone more power, what they really mean is that the EC makes situations like Florida 2000 more likely-- It's a flawed definition.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

Because cities tend to get over represented in our system as it is.

I don't see it. Something like 60 percent of the U.S. population lives in a city of more than 200,000 people, and 80 percent of the population lives in or near an urban area (city of at least 50,000 people or the suburbs, etc.), but farm subsidies and ethanol subsidies are sacrosanct while U.S. infrastructure is in terrible shape, and in the language of current politics, rural America is "the real America." If the electoral college were gone, maybe you'd see fewer politicians hunting in front of the cameras. I'm not seeing the downside here.

You know the last time somebody from upstate was elected governor? Nathan Miller, in 1921.

I don't really care where the governor is from, but if Carl Palladino is anything to go by, it might be another 90 years before civilization takes hold. Seriously, how much of the New York State population lives in the city and the suburbs around it? I don't think it's proportionate to its influence on state politics, although I think that's more a factor of the individuals in the legislature and their voting blocs than anything else.

[Critical1]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

If we didn't have the Electoral College in the first place, who in their right mind would propose such an idiotic device as an improvement?

Yeah, of course we should scrap the damned thing. The difficulty is in actually doing so.

QFT

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

Because cities tend to get over represented in our system as it is. I grew up in and have recently moved back to Upstate NY, and the city dominates New York State politics, and New York State statewide elections.

Let's see: NY State has 19.4 million people, and the NYC metro area has 18.9 million people. Admittedly, several million of those live in CT and NJ, but still: of course NYC should dominate state politics.

We're lucky that we have Gilibrand now, who's from up here and cares about the area, but with the exception of her, Moynahan, Clinton, and to a lesser extent Schumer, upstate largely gets ignored by New York Senators.

Restating:

"With the exception of everyone who's occupied one of our two U.S. Senate seats for the past 1/3 of a century, and to a lesser extent the guy who's occupied the other one for the past dozen years, upstate largely gets ignored by New York Senators."

Cry me a river, dude!

People in rural and smaller areas need a voice, and a system that only cares about population will deny them that.

Everyone should have an equal voice, and a system that systematically overrepresents certain groups undermines that principle.

People in rural and smaller areas need a voice proportionate to their population, just like everyone else. In the states that actually happens, because of one-person, one-vote decisions by the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, these decisions don't apply to the U.S. Senate or the Electoral College.

FWIW, if we did away with the EC, the U.S. Senate would still ensure the overrepresentation of the poor, helpless residents of rural America in our politics. Personally, I think abolishing the Senate is the right initial move, and dicking around with the EC is just dealing with a symptom. (For all the inspiration we supposedly provide to the spread of democracy around the world, you notice that essentially nobody else in the world has followed us into bicameralism. There's a reason for that.) Of course, I'm also quite aware that we're stuck with the Senate, but there's some minute chance that we might free ourselves from the EC.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Quoth BobLibDem:Florida 2000 was that on a national scale. As a direct result of our system, we had a situation where dispute over the votes in a couple of counties swung the entire national election. If we went by the national popular vote total instead, problems like that would be so rare as to be practically nonexistent. When mathematicians extol the virtues of the Electoral College as giving everyone more power, what they really mean is that the EC makes situations like Florida 2000 more likely-- It's a flawed definition.

I would like to believe that but I can't. A national winner-take-all vote means that every vote would be challenged in any election except for the very rare landslide. Every friggin' vote. Obama took 54% of the vote, which is normally sizable, but 4% is small enough to be within margin of error. That means that states that normally tilt hugely Republican or Democrat would be in play for the tiny fractions of their votes that now are too small to make any difference.

The only way to have a national election is to have a perfect system of national i.d. and address verification. That would require procedures that would send half the country into a frenzy. I wouldn't even attempt such a system without implanting chips into all Americans at birth or maybe tattooing bar codes on their foreheads.

Whether you like the Electoral College or not, it will not be changed in my lifetime.

The upside is that people will get to start these futile threads several times a year forever.

[Giles]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

I would like to believe that but I can't. A national winner-take-all vote means that every vote would be challenged in any election except for the very rare landslide. Every friggin' vote. ...

The French manage to do it*, with a population of 66 million. Is that because the French are a lot more clever at running elections than Americans? Or is because the French are much less likely to squabble about political matters?

___

* Actually, they do it twice, if the first ballot does not produce a winner with more than 50% of the vote, since they then have a run-off ballot between the two leading candidates.

[Chronos]

Parties would only challenge the vote total if they had a chance of reversing 4% of all of the votes cast in the entire nation. Even Bush vs. Gore was still a margin of over half a percent, or over half a million votes. By contrast, Florida was down at the hundredth of a percent level, being decided by a mere 537 votes. The national popular vote would never be decided by a margin that small, or even by a margin 50 times that size. Again, the mathematicians who proclaim the superiority of the Electoral College acknowledge this, and it is in fact the core of their argument.

[Lord Feldon]

I don't understand how the electoral college guarantees that the government will care about rural issues. Look at this map. Just about half of the states got no attention at all from the campaigns in 2008. Without the electoral college, a pretty big chunk of the populations of those states would become relevant. Democrats would be worrying about how many votes they would be getting from Oklahoma, and Republicans would be doing the same about New York. Right now, they're electoral flyover states.

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

For instance, the President and Vice President can't be from the same state.

This isn't true. Electors can't vote for two people from their own state. Having both the president and vice president be from one state would run a risk of throwing the VP's election to the Senate, but it would be constitutionally permissible.

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

but 4% is small enough to be within margin of error. That means that states that normally tilt hugely Republican or Democrat would be in play for the tiny fractions of their votes that now are too small to make any difference.

What definition of Margin of Error are you using? 4% is something like 6 million votes, thats a pretty huge number of votes to claim were miscounted.

Remember, an election isn't a poll. There's no error due to sampling size. The only possible types of error are either fraud or with the actual vote counting systems. I don't think anyone would find it plausible that 6 million votes were due to some machine glitch (6 million people would be a sizable fraction of the votes in even the largest states), and fraud on that scale would be pretty impossible to perpetrate without someone catching on.

Thats actually an argument to do away with the electoral college, IMHO. With the huge number of voters in the popular vote total, a "close" election where things turn on a couple thousand votes is pretty unlikely, while they're somewhat common when the Presidential election is actually 51 much smaller elections.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

What definition of Margin of Error are you using? 4% is something like 6 million votes, thats a pretty huge number of votes to claim were miscounted.

Remember, an election isn't a poll. There's no error due to sampling size. The only possible types of error are either fraud or with the actual vote counting systems. I don't think anyone would find it plausible that 6 million votes were due to some machine glitch (6 million people would be a sizable fraction of the votes in even the largest states), and fraud on that scale would be pretty impossible to perpetrate without someone catching on.

Thats actually an argument to do away with the electoral college, IMHO. With the huge number of voters in the popular vote total, a "close" election where things turn on a couple thousand votes is pretty unlikely, while they're somewhat common when the Presidential election is actually 51 much smaller elections.

You don't think that the Republican or Democratic Committees could find six million votes to squabble over in the whole of the United States with the presidency at stake?

They would. What we've saw in Florida and more recently in Minnesota would be sideshows by comparison to a true presidential vote-by-vote measure. Every single vote in every single precinct would be recounted. And by 50 or more sets of laws. And by more than 50 sets of what constitutes a valid ballot. And by 50 sets of who is a valid citizen with valid registration. When I say every ballot would be questioned, I mean every, yours, mine, and theirs.

It doesn't matter that other countries manage to do this. I'm predicting what would happen here to a mathematical certainty. The only way to do would be to nationalize the entire voting system, with one set of ballots, a national database, and universally recognized voting and counting procedures. If you can convince me that we will see those in my lifetime, I'll grant you the possibility of eliminating the electoral college. But not before.

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

You don't think that the Republican or Democratic Committees could find six million votes to squabble over in the whole of the United States with the presidency at stake?

They routinely accept far far smaller margins in the state by state races, so no, I don't think they'd squabble over six million votes. The optics when a party contests a couple thousand votes are usually pretty bad, trying to convince voters that you think there were six million mistakes in the last election without a good argument as to why, and that we should engage in an expensive nationwide recount on the off chance you'll find six million extra votes for your party somewhere are bad enough that I don't think any party would do it.

[Chronos]

Then why don't we see that now? If they have the resources to find 6 million challenges in the whole country, then they have the resources to find 120 thousand in each state. Or 240 thousand in each of 25 different states. Flip 240 thousand votes in each of the right 25 states, and I'll bet you could change the outcome of any presidential election since the Era of Good Feelings. So why is this never done?

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

Not really. There's currently a law passed in eight states to have their electoral votes go to the winner of the popular vote if states representing more then half the electoral vote total pass similar legislation. While technically this doesn't abolish the electoral college, it would make it meaningless. The winner of the popular vote would always win the electoral college vote.

New York and CA, with their 84 electoral votes seem like they'll pass the same law soon, which would put it more then half-way to the total it needs, so I actually suspect we'll see the end of the electoral college as a meaningful institution within my life time.

Here's the problem with that. If NY and CA do it, but Texas and Florida don't, that's like unilateral disarmerment, isn't it? Assuming that a third of the districts in those states go GOP, that's about 30 electoral votes the GOP picks up, but a third of texas won't go to the Dem...

I think it maybe should be done that way, I think that would be more fair, but it only really works if everyone goes along.

Two states, (Maine and Nebraska) already do it that way, but they have so few electoral votes, it doesn't make a difference.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Then why don't we see that now? If they have the resources to find 6 million challenges in the whole country, then they have the resources to find 120 thousand in each state. Or 240 thousand in each of 25 different states. Flip 240 thousand votes in each of the right 25 states, and I'll bet you could change the outcome of any presidential election since the Era of Good Feelings. So why is this never done?

Did you forget what an insane circus Florida was when Al Gore tried to do just that?

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Did you forget what an insane circus Florida was when Al Gore tried to do just that?

Err..Gore tried to flip something like 500 votes. Thats a little more reasonable then 240,000. But thats why just using the winner of the popular vote is less likely to cause recounts, the chances of an electorate of 120 million people in a single election coming within a few hundred votes of each other is a lot smaller then 51 elections in states of a few million.

Here's the problem with that. If NY and CA do it, but Texas and Florida don't, that's like unilateral disarmerment, isn't it? Assuming that a third of the districts in those states go GOP, that's about 30 electoral votes the GOP picks up, but a third of texas won't go to the Dem...

No, the laws only go into effect once states representing half the electoral college adopt them. Once thats true, it doesn't matter what the other states do, the winner of the popular vote will win the electoral college, regardless.

[Chronos]

Did you forget what an insane circus Florida was when Al Gore tried to do just that?

Of course I didn't forget; that's what I'm basing my argument on. Situations like that are much more common with an electoral college than they would be without it.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Then why don't we see that now? If they have the resources to find 6 million challenges in the whole country, then they have the resources to find 120 thousand in each state. Or 240 thousand in each of 25 different states. Flip 240 thousand votes in each of the right 25 states, and I'll bet you could change the outcome of any presidential election since the Era of Good Feelings. So why is this never done?

Can you show me an election in which 25 states were decidable by that margin?

The closeness of a total election is not dependent on the closeness of individual states. This site breaks out state-by-state results. For the 2000 election, 28 states and DC had margins of more than 10%. Five were really close. It's an oddity that the states are increasingly polarized but the population as a whole is split very closely. The Electoral College hides that. An individual vote count wouldn't. And the psychology would be hugely different.

To nitpick myself. Obama won 54% of the big two vote. He won 53% of the total vote when the smaller parties are counted.

[Icarus]

IMHO - eliminating the EC could improve voter turnout, and I think this would be a good thing.

Consider - a rational voter in say, California or Illinois, might surmise that the state will go Democratic in the Presidential election because of the EC. If they are a Republican voter they might not vote at all for the Presidential candidate - as it would be a "wasted" vote.

Eliminate the EC and now every vote everywhere counts. If you are in the minority party in a state, your vote is still valuable for the overall count.

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I don't see it. Something like 60 percent of the U.S. population lives in a city of more than 200,000 people, and 80 percent of the population lives in or near an urban area (city of at least 50,000 people or the suburbs, etc.), but farm subsidies and ethanol subsidies are sacrosanct while U.S. infrastructure is in terrible shape, and in the language of current politics, rural America is "the real America." If the electoral college were gone, maybe you'd see fewer politicians hunting in front of the cameras. I'm not seeing the downside here.

Not even close. Only 61 million Americans live in cities with populations over 200,000. It goes up to 84 million if you include cities > 100,000.

Because of the hard to comprehend way the census defines things it is easy to get confused about this.

It is absolutely true that something like 80% live within a "metropolitan area" but a much, much smaller percent actually live in what the census deems the "central city." Additionally many, many areas most people would consider extremely rural are classified as urban by the census, any census designated place with a population over 2,500 is considered urban.

[Martin Hyde]

Cite for above.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

Not even close. Only 61 million Americans live in cities with populations over 200,000. It goes up to 84 million if you include cities > 100,000.

Because of the hard to comprehend way the census defines things it is easy to get confused about this.

It is absolutely true that something like 80% live within a "metropolitan area" but a much, much smaller percent actually live in what the census deems the "central city." Additionally many, many areas most people would consider extremely rural are classified as urban by the census, any census designated place with a population over 2,500 is considered urban.

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

Cite for above.

It's true that the census definitions for urban and the way people live are often at odds. Metro areas can be very large and include farming regions and what might otherwise be considered rural areas. Metro Los Angeles is actually more densely populated than metro New York City according to one chart I saw recently in a magazine (and can't remember where).

However, your cite is for central cities only and that is simply the worst way to define urban areas. Central cities, especially in the older areas of the country, are almost totally artificial boundaries of urban life. Most of those areas have suburbs that would otherwise qualify on their own for this list. Only in the sunbelt, where annexation is still possible, is there any semblance of correlation between a central city and metro area.

The 80% who live in metro areas are different from the other 20% even if they live on farms. They get the same television stations and newspapers as the downtown folk. They root for the same sports teams. They have the same malls. They suffer from the same pollution, congestion, and traffic. They share representatives at the local, state, country, and national levels. The major employers impact them and the major layoffs impact them. Using central cities as you guide is a guarantee that even major issue of social or political dimension will be misrepresented.

For all the census faults, metro areas are mandatory groupings. In fact, Consolidated Areas are even better for many analyses because they are larger. I don't know why this site goes only to 2003, but it gives a total population in the 56 CAa as 177,510,088 but a core city population of only 43,350,520. That latter number is ludicrous as a measure of urbanization. I'd go with the former in 99 of 100 specifics.

[Saint Cad]

The problem with the EC is that states are not creative in how to divide up the electors and except for 2 have a winner take all system. Let's just say California with its 55 electoral votes decides on the folowing breakdown
Winner gets 50-52.5% of the state vote: Winner 30 EV, Loser 25 EV
Winner gets 52.5-55% of the state vote: Winner 40 EV, Loser 15 EV
Winner gets 55-57.5% of the state vote: Winner 50 EV, Loser 5 EV
Winner gets more than 57.5% of the state vote: Winner 55 EV, Loser 0 EV

All of the sudden, California is relevant again because a swing of less than 10 million votes is worth up to 25 electoral votes. And while we're at it, any candidate gets 2 EV for breaking 2% of the vote.

Not saying that's the best way to deal with electoral votes, but it is certainly better than a winner take all system.

[Cyberhwk]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

New York and CA, with their 84 electoral votes seem like they'll pass the same law soon, which would put it more then half-way to the total it needs, so I actually suspect we'll see the end of the electoral college as a meaningful institution within my life time.

The problem with that idea is that, A.) It's those last few states that are going to be a bitch to get on board since they'd basically be voting themselves less influence. And B.) Even if you could get those states on board, every state would likely agree up until the point their state's votes go towards a candidate that lost the state. If Alabama's votes went to Barack Obama, repealing the compact would be HB 1 of the next legislative session. Same with California in 2004.

[sitchensis]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Cry me a river, dude!

Everyone should have an equal voice, and a system that systematically overrepresents certain groups undermines that principle.

People in rural and smaller areas need a voice proportionate to their population, just like everyone else. In the states that actually happens, because of one-person, one-vote decisions by the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, these decisions don't apply to the U.S. Senate or the Electoral College.

FWIW, if we did away with the EC, the U.S. Senate would still ensure the overrepresentation of the poor, helpless residents of rural America in our politics. Personally, I think abolishing the Senate is the right initial move, and dicking around with the EC is just dealing with a symptom. (For all the inspiration we supposedly provide to the spread of democracy around the world, you notice that essentially nobody else in the world has followed us into bicameralism. There's a reason for that.) Of course, I'm also quite aware that we're stuck with the Senate, but there's some minute chance that we might free ourselves from the EC.

Human biology has needs; food, shelter, water, heat.

The rural Americans that get a little more of the vote do so because they give a little more in keeping you alive. The EC is fine because it give the people that keep you alive a voice in how the nation is governed. Screw farm subsidies, get rid of every farmer, logger, miner and driller, and then see how many cell phones and internet subscriptions you can sell. If you really think that the voice of the man that feeds you should be equal to the voice of the man the designs your window treatments than you got your priorities way the fuck out or order.

[Lord Feldon]

Originally Posted by sitchensis

The rural Americans that get a little more of the vote do so because they give a little more in keeping you alive.

The state that produces the most food has the most residents per Senator of any state, and is towards the top in the number of residents per electoral vote.

[aruvqan]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

Additionally many, many areas most people would consider extremely rural are classified as urban by the census, any census designated place with a population over 2,500 is considered urban.

Woot, my town of 5000 people in 40 sq miles makes me a dazzling urbanite!

And I for one would love to lose the electoral college.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by sitchensis

The rural Americans that get a little more of the vote do so because they give a little more in keeping you alive.

"Farmers deserve more of a vote because they grow your food?" Thank you for demonstrating how archaic and illogical the electoral college is. The EC does not give more votes to farmers. It gives more votes to people in states with low populations regardless of what they do. What percentage of America's crops are grown in Alaska?

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by Cyberhwk

The problem with that idea is that, A.) It's those last few states that are going to be a bitch to get on board since they'd basically be voting themselves less influence.

Its smaller states that would be voting themselves less influence, but a) several smaller states have already passed the law and b) You don't need very many smaller states to pass the law, since you only need states representing half the electoral college. So I don't think this is actually that much of a hangup.

And B.) Even if you could get those states on board, every state would likely agree up until the point their state's votes go towards a candidate that lost the state. If Alabama's votes went to Barack Obama, repealing the compact would be HB 1 of the next legislative session. Same with California in 2004.

Maybe, but once the law went into effect I don't think many people would bother tracking where their states electoral college went, anymore. Since the popular vote would be all that matters, there wouldn't be much reason to other then historical interest. And if enough states pass the law, any one state withdrawing doesn't affect things, and as a result theres less impetus for any one state to withdraw. So again, I don't think this will be much of a problem.

[Bryan Ekers]

Seems to me that if the complaint with the EC is that it gives rural states disproportionate power, scrapping it will eventually spark complaints that city-dwellers have too much power, so the only logical approach is to keep the pendulum moving and alternate between EC and popular vote.


So there.

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by Marley23

"Farmers deserve more of a vote because they grow your food?" Thank you for demonstrating how archaic and illogical the electoral college is. The EC does not give more votes to farmers. It gives more votes to people in states with low populations regardless of what they do. What percentage of America's crops are grown in Alaska?

Yea, aside from being silly, the argument doesn't even really make sense on its own terms. The two states that produce the most agricultural products (Texas and CA) are also the two that loose the most representation from the EC system.

I also think this rural/urban thing is kind of a hijack. Rural states are given disproportionate power by the Senate, but the EC doesn't really help them. The states given extra "umph" by the EC system are those that are closely divided politically: Nevada, Ohio and Florida. The first is dominated by a single city, and the other two have a mixture of urban and rural areas. The EC insures that politicians seeking votes in most other states is a waste of time, and also that those of us living in those three states are innundated by constant political ads.

[That Don Guy]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Should we get rid of the electoral college.

I say yes.

Besides the possibility of electing someone who lost the popular vote (which has happened four times since the current system was set up by the 12th Amendment) it distorts our democracy.

What democracy? There is a reason the 16th word in the Pledge of Allegiance is what it is. You would think that, in a democracy, a nationwide referendum would be part of the process of amending the Constitution (like it is in Australia).

It puts too much emphasis on "Swing states" while ignoring the rest of the country.

And that is why, short of the attempt to change the law one state at a time until 270 electoral votes' worth of states go to the nationwide popular vote winner, the Electoral College is going nowhere - all it takes is 13 "swing states" to realize that, if only for once every four years, they're important.

[Siam Sam]

Put me down as pro-electoral college, for reasons already listed in this thread. I'll always vote to keep it.