I think a 4-year term would be good. It’s good to have some representatives that aren’t continuously running for re-election, but 6 years is just too long.
I think all this hand-wringing over how to recount the national is really just a performance. The nation has already demonstrated that they’re fine with the legitimacy of a president who actually lost the popular vote by .5% (Bush 2004). We shouldn’t have any compunction about a close popular vote, as long as we have mechanisms to hold states accountable for their elections and recounts.
That argument did not apply to the electoral college as it existed in 2016, and does not apply to the electoral college as it will exist this year.
I already admitted that a recount is an edge case, and that the cost of doing one is “not so much in the grand scale of things”. You even quoted me making those admissions. What else would you have me do?
When was the last time the EC actually functioned the way that you want it to? And what are the chances that it would go back to that?
Not use edge cases as a reason for upholding a system that has already shown that it is more likely to have an unintended result than your edge case by at least a 4-0 ratio.
Personally, I think that we should always do a recount. We should take all the paper ballots (because any proper election has a paper trail), and feed them all into different machines than the first count was done on. That should just be standard practice.
The some percentage from every district should be hand counted, with those totals matched against the machine tallies.
Any significant discrepancies means more recounting for those places that had them, along with forensic level accounting if need be.
I actually liked a system I heard about back in the late aughties. If it is within 1%, then it goes to chance, with the person who is ahead having a slight advantage.
The college was established in 1789, never or possibly 1794, and not applicable or extremely unlikely.
Unintended result? 4-0 ratio? Maybe such arguments were shown to you, but they have not been shown to me. I haven’t admitted that the electoral college is intended to elect the candidate who wins a national popular vote, if that is what you imply.
Which is why I set it to prior to, back when the Articles of Confederation were about.
I’d lean for never, but sure 1794, depending on how you feel about it, it at least was kinda in play.
So, it’s (almost)never been used for its intended purpose, and never will be.
Not that great a defense.
No, you have not admitted such, but as that is in fact the position that I have been arguing from, it is not necessary for you to admit it in order for me to invoke it.
Point is, I can show you at least 4 times that the person who won the EC is not the person that won the popular vote. That doesn’t mean that they would have won if the election had been conducted differently, but it does mean that there is a flaw in the system.
You cannot show a single time that the national election has come down to be so close as to require a recount. Which I think that we should do anyway.
It wasn’t made to be a great defense. I certainly wouldn’t argue that the electoral college we have now is significantly better than a national popular vote we don’t have now.
Arguments have been presented that a national popular vote, which we don’t have now, would be significantly better than the electoral college we have now. I have tried to explain why I disagree with these as they are presented.
That depends on how close it has to be to require a recount. If you’re talking about existing law for a required recount of the entire national election, that means a recount of the electoral college votes. I don’t believe there is a statute providing for an automatic recount of electoral votes. If you’re talking about some hypothetical law providing for an automatic recount of a hypothetical national popular vote, it depends on what margin is written into the law, doesn’t it?
For your reference:
James Garfield won the popular vote in 1880 by a margin of 1,898 votes, or 0.09%.
J.F.K. won the popular vote in 1960 by a margin of 112,827 votes, or 0.17%.
G. W. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 by a margin of 543,816 votes, or 0.51%.
Richard Nixon won the popular vote in 1968 by a margin of 511,944 votes, or 0.7%.
Benjamin Harrison lost the popular vote in 1888 by a margin of 90,596 votes, or 0.83%.
Most states with automatic recounts put the threshold at 0.5% or 1%. New Mexico and Ohio use 0.25%. Alaska, South Dakota, and Texas require an exact tie to trigger the automatic recount.
Arizona (0.1%), Oregon (0.2%) and Wyoming (1%) use a different standard, by putting in the denominator only votes cast for the top two candidates.
A lot of people get into politics because they have a vested interest in affecting policy. I think climate change is a huge problem and we need to start doing drastic shit to stop it. Nothing is stopping me running to be an elector and start making tacit agreements (in the way I keep describing) with presidential candidates and other people running to be electors.
I am so baffled. People are defending the EC system because was supposed to be a roadblock to electing crazy extremists. And yet, it is the EC that has caused us to elect a fascist. And it could be the mechanism that allows fascism to continue. The EC is actively hurting the country, maybe destroying the country. And it’s undemocratic. One person, one vote my ass. But, yeah, let’s trust the Electoral College voters over the popular vote.
Let’s talk district level since that’s what I said I would prefer. I’m getting about $2.1 million per Democrat running for the 2018 House elections and $1.5 million per Republican. Or put another way, 1.5649 billion combined for the elections of the entire House of Representatives. Assuming an average of 750,000 constituents per representative, that comes out to an average citizen donating just under $5 per election. Pretend 5% of people actually bother to donate, that brings it to an average donation of $100, assuming the entire campaign is funded by individual donations. That’s not my idea of “staggering”, it’s pretty much what I expected.
Let’s even be charitable and say that your logic is correct, that electors could fund enough to campaign as much as a representative because 5% of voters will donate an average of $100 to campaigns of candidates with a grass-roots base of support. Let’s say one of the grassroots candidates has $2M in individual donors. Problem is there’s another candidate who only raised $500k from individual donors but gets $1M each in free advertising from PACs backed by the banking industry and the oil industry. Now that elector has a built-in advertising advantage, and if they use it to win is very likely to choose a president based on their financial interest.
Your own real life data: 2.1+1.5=3.6
Your hypothetical data: 2.0+0.5+1.0+1.0=4.5
You’ve pulled $900,000 out of thin air, and then pointed at it as if it were some neat trick. Furthermore, that average $5 donation figure (and the 5% making $100 in donations) represents all candidates in the election. If you had a tight race where total funding is split 50/50 between Republicans and Democrats, that comes out to 5% of Republicans donating $50 and 5% of Democrats donating $50.
Let’s recap. I said grassroots campaigns become more viable the smaller the electorate is. You said the money required even at the district level is staggering, presumably too staggering for a grassroots campaign to be viable, and linked to some data. I took that data and showed you how a district-level grassroots campaign can raise enough money to match funding with actual campaigns in 2018.
ETA: You can argue that my numbers are unattainable for grassroots campaigns. Reasonable people can disagree on that and I’m certainly no expert. You’ve got a $100 bill for an avatar so presumably you know something about money. But why would you imply that I’m wrong to compare against the 2018 data which you provided? What other purpose did you have in giving me that link?
You can halve the numbers and the hypothetical still works just as well. Or you can just say that the candidates combined raised the 2.5M they could using a grassroots effort and Exxon decided picking the president was worth giving millions of dollars to hundreds of different elector campaigns around the country. Regardless, those numbers are an order of magnitude off from where they would need to be for corporate influence in elections to be negated by a grassroots effort. If it cost like $5000 to get your messaging to all the voters you needed to, sure big moneyed interests would be less relevant.
I still maintain that campaign spending on the district level is staggering. When you’re talking about needing to spend millions of dollars in advertising, the ability for a special interest group to drop 1M on a candidate is going to alter elections, and is going to create conflicts of interest. It doesn’t matter if it’s attainable or not for someone to raise 2M in grassroots donations. Even if it’s attainable, the amount of money required to reach eyeballs in the modern media environment means that powerful groups with deep pockets will have a huge influence. Just look at the way races work now - you often get candidates with grassroots campaigns vying against opponents with more money raised from corporate donor influence, and the grassroots candidates have a puncher’s chance but every time they lose you end up with a representative who owes someone.
Likewise, I realize that you’re right on this point. Or at least that I was wrong. I could make a much stronger argument about separation of powers but with two major errors in one debate in one day, I’m too ashamed to go through with it.
If we’re talking about modern media environments as in 2022, 2024, 2026, and not 1980s-2000s era “modern”, I think the barier of entry is shrinking considerably with the advent and rising popularity of social media platforms. I think the cost of acquiring the means to reach 5% of fellow citizens in a region near you is quickly approaching however much you pay for internet service.
To be clear, the EC did not produce a result in 2016 that was at all tolerable to me either. But keep in mind, for 30 out of 50 states, the final EC result matched what the population wanted. I think it’d be difficult to call ourselves the United States of America, if only 20/50 states could somehow completely overrule everyone else, as many posters in this thread seem to be in favor of.
Either result would have underscored cracks at the foundation. You either would have had a president that a supermajority of states didn’t want, or a president that a small majority of populace didn’t want.
But why would you imply that I’m wrong to compare against the 2018 data which you provided? What other purpose did you have in giving me that link?