Enderw24 Explains the Stupidity of the Electoral College

Great Debates
101

One last time, sailor. If you still don’t get the distinction, that’s your problem. All I can say is it works just fine for me.

The senator from Wyoming is not my senator. It’s an anti-democratic annoyance that the half million residents of Wyoming get to elect just as many senators as the twenty million residents of Texas, but it does not affect my vote for my senators.

The president is my president, just as he is the president for a voter in Wyoming. Yet a Wyoming voter has several times more influence on the vote than I do, thanks to the small-state bias built into the Electoral College. This directly diminishes the effect my vote. I happen to value my right to vote, and that’s why I’m more pissed off about the EC’s weighting than I am about the Senate’s weighting.

102

Maybe I can get minty to help sailor in this.

Minty: Have you ever served as an Elector? If not, then by your own argument as posted just above, none of our presidents has ever been your president because you have never voted for president, but merely for Electors. Got it?

103

Once again, Monty, please provide a cite demonstrating that I am unaware that the presidential election is an election for electors.

104

hmmm…no.

I’ve never once voted for an elector.
And the fact that I’ve never once voted for a president is what gets me upset in the first place. But the argument itself is stupid. George Bush doesn’t need to listen to any Americans except the 535 that voted for or against him? What a relief that must be for him to hear.

Sailor,
I’m not sure if I’m following your argument here. You don’t like the Senate because it disproportionately misrepresents the states, populationwise. But you also wouldn’t want the U.N. to have its votes based upon population because then China would nab all the votes. Aren’t these two ideas conflicting?
If you agree that every country is a country and shouldn’t have its voting power stiffled by how many people back that country, why can’t you also say that a state is a state and deserves equal representation regardless of its population?

105

Are you sure that’s what you meant? When you “vote for President”, you are indeed voting for a slate of electors pledged to a candidate, not the candidate himself, whether or not the ballot explicitly says so.

I share your disappointment in the archaism of the system, though.

106

Looking at the last few posts, I am getting a little confused as to who is arguing what here. Ender you are arguing against the EC, and Sailor is for it, right?

I do understand this:

But I think it is a misconception. Minty, the senator from Wyoming does not represent you, but federal laws that are passed with his help do certainly apply to you. One senator alone cannot pass or block* a law; it is the Senate as a whole that does this.

The Senate as a whole is less democratic than the EC, and the senate as a whole, and the president individually, have roughly comparable powers. Also, technically the president is not “your” president, as the constitution does not give you the power to elect him (unless you happen to be in the EC).

Let me ask you, would you be happier if they simply changed the ballots such that, instead of the name of the candidate for president, it showed the name of the elector, and perhaps the candidate and/or party to which he or she were committed? I beleive this is how it used to be done.

*Actually, single senators skilled at parliamentary maneuvering can sometimes effectively block a bill. This makes the senate even less democratic.

107

>> One last time, sailor. If you still don’t get the distinction, that’s your problem. All I can say is it works just fine for me.

Minty, “my problem?” I would say not. I would rather say if you do not get what I am saying it’s your problem because it so happens that you are the one who does not like the way things are at present and would want to change them. So I guess it is your problem if not enough people share your view

Enderw24, I am not advocating one thing or another. I am just saying that in my view IF you do not like the elections for president not being strictly proportional, then you should like the senate even less. That’s all.

The vote for senators or presidential electors of any Nebraskan is worth exactly the same as any other Nebraskan and they all get to vote. It just so happens that each Nebraskan presidential elector represents slightly fewer votes than each Californian presidential elector. And each Nebraskan senator represents only a fraction of the votes of a Californian senator.

My question is, why is it OK for the big disparity when voting for senators and not ok in the small disparity when voting for presidential electors?

I repeat: I am not advocating one thing or the other, I am just saying that I do not understand the logic of that position.

108

Weird_AL_Einstein, as I said in my previous post, I am not advocating one thing or the other, just pointing out something which you seem to understand perfectly. Maybe you can do a better job of explaining it.

109

I’m aware that the Senate passes bills, and that its representatives are disproportionately stacked in favor of the smaller states. My point is that the election of a Senator in Wyoming does not affect my own personal vote (i.e., my ballot) for my personal senator. My vote counts exactly as much as that of every other person who votes in the election for that senator. That is not true in the election for president, where my vote counts significantly less than the vote of a Wyoming resident voting for exactly the same office.

I am shocked, sir, shocked! This “Electoral College” of which you speak should be done away with. In fact, I intend to argue against it most vociferously in the future. :wink:

Let me repeat myself: The Electoral College blows. It should be destroyed in its entirety and replaced with direct voting for the presidency, preferably without anything resembling the weighted, state-by-state voting system currently in place.

I never said it was okay. I said it was not as big a concern. Believe it or not, sailor, not all bad things are equally bad. Disproportionate representation in the Senate is a somewhat bad thing. The Electoral College is a worse thing, for reasons described in my last couple posts to you and in my reply to Al in this post.

110

One of the major things that makes this an issue is the tendency of people in our most populous cities to vote largely Democratic, and for people in the less-populous “heartland” to vote largely Republican. Were this not the case, I don’t think any but the geekiest political wonks among us would even care.

I think it was Chris Matthews who pointed out during the election brouhaha, looking at that infamous red-and-blue map of who where voted how, that Al Gore could be president, get on a plane in New York and fly to Los Angeles, and be flying over an entire nation that didn’t want him as their leader.

The bottom line is, somebody’s influence is diminished, whichever way you go. Either the voters in the big cities, or the folks in the sparsely-populated states in the middle of the country.

I think the FFs had great foresight in recognizing that the strength of this nation is in its union of states large and small. Our ancestors fought with each other in one of the most awful wars ever fought to preserve it.

As has been pointed out, the EC still acknowledges the population differences in the states. But it gives some influence to all states, influence that many otherwise would not have.

Clearly, Bush would not be sitting in the Oval Office now were it not for those little, trifling states in the middle of the country. I’m sure a lot of you see that as a horrifically bad thing.

A lot of other people aren’t comfortable with being ruled by the President of New York, L.A. and Philadelphia, either.

minty green, you shouldn’t have stopped with “We The People.” Continue on to the next phrase, “in order to form a more perfect union.”

I don’t think that union of 50 would remain as strong if our largest cities in only a few states continually rule the day on who our leaders are.

And can we be practical here for a moment? The EC is written into the Constitution. Changing it will require an amendment. Article V says that will require approval by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the states.

Good luck.

111

Minty,

Here’s your proof:

Neither you nor the Wyoming resident votes for that office. Zero is not “significantly less” than zero. Get it now?

112

Electors aren’t, or theoretically shouldn’t be, pledged to any candidate. They should vote based on how the population of that state votes. That they aren’t specifically required to is a problem with the EC I brought up near the OP.

But I stand by my statement. I have never once voted for an elector. I didn’t choose them to have that responsibility of choosing my President for me. I’ve never once gone into a voting booth and pulled the lever for “Elector of district #5.”
No, I’ve never voted for an elector. I’ve voted through an elector and I don’t really like the filter.

113

Minty and Enderw24, I think I have come to the end of what I can contribute to this thread. I cannot say you are wrong as you are entitled to your order of preferences but I do think you are missing some important things and you are giving more weight to superficial things and not enough weight to substantial things. Just my opinion. I think you would have a hard time convincing others of your view that the greater disproportion in the senate is not important while the minor disproportion for the presidency is very important.

It comes down to this: The number of people represented by each elector varies and the number of people represented by each senator varies. That is the origin of the different weight of votes from different people. But the difference is much greater in the case of the senate. The voting system is such that (1) in the presidential elections the weight of a vote from a person in a state with low population is very slightly higher than the vote of a person in a state with a high population and (2) in the senate the weight of a vote from a person in a state with low population is much higher than the vote of a person in a state with a high population

In real world, practical, effects, the imbalance is much greater and important and effective in the senate than in the presidency. Now, if you want to focus on cosmetic stuff, that is your privilege but I would rather focus on substance.

I think Milossarian has put it very well: There are historical reasons for things being the way they are and the Constitution has been the most successful constitution the world has known. Now, you can propose changes if you like but you are going to have to convince a lot of people.

114

It should also be noted that if you have a problem with smaller states having equal Senatorial representation to larger ones, and with the prominence of the role of the Senate generally in Congress, the Founding Fathers wrote an answer for you in the document - Get Over It.

Article V outlines all the ways that things can be changed in the Constitution through amendments. The last thing it notes, however, is that whatever changes may be made in the future, “no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

(emphasis mine)

115

The election of electors to Wyoming’s EC delegation does not in any way affect your personal vote for electors in your state, either. Your vote counts just as much as everyone else in your state who votes in that election.

I understand that you dislike the EC, but I still do not understand how you can dislike the senate less.

116

Well, uh, yes. I really would rather see that then what we have now.

117

Doghouse, consider the current level of apathy, indifference, cynicism about “politics as usual”. Contemplete our low voter turnouts. IMO, an important cause of this is that a lot of Americans feel that neither of the Big Two parties represents them. Yet voting for a minor party seems an exercise in futility.