This begs the question, which is what people like you who object to the EC always do. You start from a philosophical viewpoint that has no basis in American history (that the President should be the person elected by a national electorate), then say that there is a failure anytime the aggregate of votes from 51 elections doesn’t match up to the result in the EC. The founding fathers (very wise men, as it turned out, with regard to most of how our government is set up) specifically rejected that idea.
So to prove that the situation doesn’t work, you can’t just say, “well, it didn’t do what I wanted it to 40% of the time”. You have to point to some reason why the resulting President was a bad result, i.e.: the guy who won was so horrible that the nation suffers terribly. Amazingly, Donald Trump may be the first example; time will tell.
But the reason I didn’t get into the “is the EC a good thing or not” argument is that this thread isn’t about that question (or it wasn’t supposed to be). This thread is focused on debating the question posited in the OP: is the EC unconstitutional. And, of course, none of the people opposed to the EC in the thread is actually making the case it’s unconstitutional? So, if you’re not making that case, why not just go debate the value of the EC in one of the numerous threads that have endlessly addressed that argument here? :dubious:
Please. The topic is if the EC violates the philosophical principle of equal protection. Since people’s votes have different strengths depending on where they live, the answer is obviously Yes.
Those of you who think it’s good public policy and that we should keep it have a duty to explain why. None of you have done so.
Shouldn’t every elector be chosen by an equal amount of voters? Why should one group of 600,000 people get to choose two electors while another group of 600,000 people only gets to choose one elector?
You realize the Electoral College is absolutely the least of it, right? 95% of the time, the Electoral College vote agrees with the popular vote. Your entire federal government is based on this disparity you are worried about.
In fact, normally the Electoral Vote magnifies the popular vote, giving a president-elect a greater percentage of the Electoral vote than they got of the popular.
The EC would be a disaster even if it always matched the popular vote. It ensures that candidates spend a massively disproportionate amount of attention to swing states vs. non-swing states. That sometimes it goes against the popular vote is really the least of its problems.
Two things come to mind. First, many would say that it’s by design that state issues are given extra weight in the Presidential election. Second, it can’t be assumed imho that Republicans would abandon the Cuban embargo or corn subsidies if you switched to a popular vote.
Thank you for understanding the argument, even if you disagree. It’s true that we can’t really know how positions on the Cuban embargo or Appalachian coal miners would change without actually trying a popular vote. It is, I grant, entirely possible that these things have gone beyond mere provincial issues that have been amplified by the EC, into a kind of proxy belief that few people actually care about, but reflects a position on tribal affiliation. So they may not actually go away, at least not immediately.
However, I think there is an interest in not creating more of these hyperfocused issues. But as long as the current system exists, and data-driven campaigns become ever more sophisticated, things will only get worse: an end game where there is essentially no talk of real national issues and a sole focus on local problems that happen to exist in a tiny subset of states.
But that ultra-local pandering happens in elections at all levels. A Congressional candidate going into Hootin Holler is going to advocate for looser moonshine laws. It’s a matter of how much the issue matters. If 50 people will only vote for a guy who’s pro-moonshine and 50 people are mildly anti-moonshine, then you pick up votes by being pro-moonshine.
Sure. But that guy isn’t going to advocate for an issue that picks up 50 votes and loses 1000. And yet that’s the way it works for the presidential election. You can sacrifice all the votes you want in states that you were never going to win, just to pick up a tiny sliver in a state that’s contested. And although you have to be more careful, you can also throw away votes in states that you’re almost sure you’re going to win. It’s even “better” than gerrymandering, since it doesn’t even require geographical contiguity, and gets you that amplification factor between more and less contested states.
And it’s almost entirely a result of the winner-take-all for of EC vote distribution. Sure, even with proportional allocation there would still be some bias towards low population states, but it’s only a small integer factor. And I do have at least some sympathy for the argument that small states should get a little boost. But the current system actually prevents small (non-swing) states from getting their appropriate representation.
So, for this to be acceptable to you, does it need to be exactly the same weight for every vote?
And if not exactly, what tolerance of electoral bias would you allow?
'Twould seem seem likely we are all electoral whores and are simply haggling over the price.
Doesn’t seem so, particularly. There’s a qualitative difference between making an attempt at equal representation and leaving in a system designed to ignore it.
Acceptable to me would be equal representation within the margin of error in an election – that is, if the election were held on a different day, given a static political situation, how would the results differ, which takes into account weather and other apolitical events that affect turnout, and to a lesser extent measuring errors such as lost or mangled ballots.
My greater concern is the faithless elector - that is subject to mischief and corruption, and it represents a serious danger to the perceived legitimacy of democratic influence on the presidency. We need to fix that part of the electoral college.
But I’m much less concerned about the fact that Wyoming’s political influence is exaggerated; a reasonable person can make a rational argument for that. The founders of the country wanted states to buy into the fact that they could have significant representation under the new constitution, and states today would still have those same concern were we to propose altering the system.
States don’t have any concerns. People have concerns. When folks say that a state has concerns, what they really mean is that the people of that state, on average, have that concern. And then we’re right back to asking why the people of that state should have any greater say than the people of any other state.
As a practical matter, no you can’t eliminate the error. Especially from your perspective of thinking the popular vote compact requires Congressional approval. It’s simply not going to happen. I was just pointing out that the Senate and the House are worse if you’re worried about everyone’s vote being equal.
It’s actually closer to ten percent. In the forty-nine elections since the popular vote was recorded, there were five elections in which the candidate who got the most popular votes was not elected.
And the argument as whole is weak. If the Electoral College always matched the popular vote, then it would be unnecessary. But when they don’t match, then I say we’re getting the wrong outcome. We should be using the outcome of the popular vote not the outcome of the Electoral College. We no longer live in 1789.