Electoral College- time to get rid of it?

[Cyberhwk]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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.

[Chronos]

Which reasons? That the rural states need disproportionate power, or that it makes close elections more likely, or because of the possibility of unfaithful electors?

[septimus]

An N.Y. Times blog summarizing this PDF paper points out that the electoral college system affects results in less obvious ways, for example:

Relative to their number of electoral votes, turnout is about 25 percent higher in swing states than in Democratic or Republican base states.