I don’t think it’s possible to get an ‘overwhelming majority’ of the popular vote and still lose in the Electoral College. That could only happen if the Republican candidate somehow sweeps the swing states every single time, and that’s like trying to walk a tightrope. The margin for error is razor-thin there. Whatever current propels a Democrat to an ‘overwhelming majority’ in the popular vote (let’s say, 60 percent of the votes) is also going to send those waves crashing and surging into the swing states and turn them blue too.
Why is “parity of competition” a desirable goal?
Personally, I think the US has a severe case of Stockholm Syndrome regarding the electoral college. Fixing it entails admitting a very obvious and embarrassing truth, that the “freest” nation in the world chooses its leaders via an anti-democratic process that was instituted to perpetuate slavery. We can’t face the embarrassing admission that we’ve let this bullshit stand in our Constitution for 230+ years, so we keep electing assholes in rigged contests.
Just get rid of the electoral college. It solves none of the problems that it is advertised to solve. It effectively discards the vote of the minority party in most states. (Did you know that inland California would be among the largest red states if it voted independently? Instead, their Presidential votes are effectively meaningless).
This organ has no place in a country that calls itself free and democratic.
It makes everyone take civic duty a lot more seriously. You would see a lot more voter apathy in a nation/state/city that were deep red or deep blue, than one that is purple. It also means that both parties have to try to appeal across the aisle instead of one majority party relying solely on revving up its base and utterly ignoring the other.
Furthermore, one-party rule - by either party - tends to be bad. You need a strong minority opposition party to keep the ruling party honest and hold it accountable. Without fear of losing elections, the ruling party - blue or red - tends to get fat and lazy.
And it is more exciting. Most sports leagues want parity of some sort, since most people would rather watch a 3-2 hockey game than one in which one team just wins ten goals to nil. (I exaggerate the analogy, but you get my point)
But most states are deep red or deep blue now, so apparently the electoral college doesn’t achieve this.
The idea of handicapping the system to force parity between two existing parties is hilariously undemocratic. Were the EC to be done away with it would simply motivate whichever party is falling behind to find new ways to appeal to more voters and change with the times - or new parties would arise to replace them and offer better opposition. A fair electoral system in a country governed by the rule of law will not result in indefinite one party rule. I must again return to my observation that the thinking of EC proponents is incredibly warped.
At this point I honestly think you’re joking. Come on, no serious adult thinks this is a good idea.
At this time, no.
But, as I said in the part that you cut out, the disparities between populous states and lower populated states are increasing.
This will be something that happens more and more often, with more and more disparity between popular and EC vote totals.
No, this is plainly false. Why do you believe this is true? Counties administer elections and there’d be no reason to change this. If someone thinks something weird happened in Broward County, that doesn’t invalidate results for the rest of the country.
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3% which isn’t qualitatively “overwhelming” but it is absolutely decisive. There’s no good reason the person who got a decisively larger percentage of votes should still lose the election. We’re not voting for the president of Ohio and Florida, it’s the president of the entire US.
This is fine and good. Most people live in urban areas, most wealth is created in urban areas, it is entirely fitting that laws and policies predominantly serve urban areas. If you don’t like it, that’s why we have Congressional districts where racists can get together with their racist friends and send Matt Gaetz to congress. That’s the part where you get your own guy.
The only reason America ever weighted rural voters higher is that so many of them did not vote, instead rendering 3/5 of their vote to a person who legally owned them. We’re not doing that shit anymore, so rural America just needs to get accustomed to the concept of one person, one vote.
Yes. This. Nothing enrages me more than the fact that my vote from California is worth less than every other state. This is unfair and undemocratic. I can tolerate the Senate as a means for lightly populated states to have some political power. Barely. But my vote should count as much as everyone else’s when it comes to the somewhat important decision as to who is our president. A voter in Wyoming as more than three times the say in this decision. That’s completely fucked up.
I do not think I ever said we should not try to fix it. Personally I think we should try to fix it. I am hoping the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact comes into effect because I cannot see a constitutional amendment to fix it happening ever. Small states benefit from it too much and they can and will strop that.
I am not saying you did, just adding to the argument that it needs to be fixed.
However, I don’t really trust the NPVIC, as it requires nearly as much buy-in as ratifying a new amendment would, and also would not have nearly the durability of an amendment, if it would be enforceable at all.
Maybe it’s better than nothing, but I’m not entirely sure on that.
If states decide to drop out of it, what will stop them? I don’t see how one state can tell another how to vote, and congress is more or less forbidden from doing so. a NPVIC would be entirely on an honor system, and as soon as things don’t go the way that the state’s legislature wants, they will drop out.
As has been said, if we had a popular vote, people would campaign differently than they do with the EC. It would allow states to change the rules in the middle of the game in order to get their more favored outcome.
I’d say it would break down the very first time that a state that had a majority vote for the Republican, but is expected to send delegates for the Democrats, and their flip will affect the result. Maybe vice versa as well, but I think the Dems would be more likely to play by the rules.
It seems that most people are now talking about whether the electoral college is a good thing or not, and not how large a difference is too big.
I’d be interested in hearing from people who are defending the EC as a good thing to answer how large a discrepancy would just seem wrong. Would it be right if 75% of the people voted one way but the candidate with 25% of the popular vote got the Presidency?
For me, the electoral college was pretty low on the list of things wrong with the last election. The thing that was wrong was that an incompetent racist buffoon got elected, and a huge minority of Americans were happy with it. That he won by several percent less than he should have needed isn’t a huge injustice compared to the fact he was elected at all. On the other hand, if he had won with only 45% of the two-way vote versus 55% for Hillary, that would be an injustice. If hypothetically Hillary had won by the same amount, it would feel off and I would definitely not claim that she had a mandate from the people like Bush did when a minor version of the same thing happened to him.
So I guess my answer is that a 10% difference is too big.
Which, by the way, is the origin of the name of Panem, the setting of The Hunger Games.
Wouldn’t that depend on why they’re defending the EC?
To those who think the Electoral College is preferable to a direct popular vote, the fact that someone who doesn’t get a popular majority could still become President isn’t a bug, it’s a feature.
Your question makes more sense when addressed to those who defend the EC in an “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” sort of way: that, since it usually reflects the will of the majority of the population anyway, there’s no urgency about changing it.
Then they should say “no discrepancy is too big.” It reminds me of when I heard someone railing against the “ground zero mosque” which, besides not being a purpose-built mosque, was several blocks from ground zero, and I asked him how far away from ground zero would be acceptable for a mosque, and he simply stared at me and didn’t answer. Or the times when people have come in here to say “government should just live within its means” and when I ask them what specific things need to be cut along with dollar amounts they get defensive and say “it’s easy! Just cut spending!” as if they would not bitch if people thought they were serious and one of their pet programs were cut.
There is also the fact that, as has been stated, we don’t actually know how different the popular vote would have been had that been the objective of the game, rather than the EC.
Many in California stayed home or voted third party, as they didn’t feel their vote mattered. On both sides.
The EC is itself discouraging to voter turnout. People outside of a small handful of states don’t think that their votes matter. Getting rid of it wouldn’t just affect the presidential race, but all the downballot ones as well.
You don’t know whether we disagree on core values until the debate has been had. I haven’t spent that much time thinking about the best way to elect a president, and my opinion on this subject is not set in stone.
I prefer the status quo by default, not to the exclusion of all else. You can say there are problems with the status quo, but that just means there are problems. Maybe I will suggest a solution if one comes to me - I suggested district-by-district representation in the electoral college upthread. But if you want to convince me to change to a nationwide popular vote, you have to make the argument that the nationwide popular vote is better than the existing electoral college. You have to say why it’s better, and hopefully your reasoning is deeper than “because that way the president will win the popular vote”. Then I can (or someone else might) counter with ways a national popular vote is worse than the existing electoral college, or worse than my district-by-district system. Or why your reasoning is wrong. That’s how these things are supposed to go.
~Max
I couldn’t agree more.
~Max
How do you suggest we choose our President? It’s not totally clear from your posts.
~Max