How is that any different than now? There’s 9.5 million people in the Chicago area and 13 million in the entire state.
I support federalism so I like the Electoral College.
One thing that hasn’t been mentioned is that the Electoral College discourages voter fraud.
But, but, but you say, George W may have won in 2000 because of a few hundred cases of voter fraud in Florida!
Exactly. That proves the point. In a straight popular vote, anyone could commit voter fraud in any part of the country to have an effect. The Electoral College keeps it contained through a winner take all system. With a straight popular vote, you know that you can impact the election results just a little by committing voter fraud. In a winner take all system, voter fraud is meaningless the vast majority of the time because you would have to know what states are going to end up almost tied or the effort is completely wasted.
You remember what a nightmare recounting the votes in Florida was and how long it took. Now imaging if every single precinct in the country had to do the same thing.
Exactly. And who were the Federalists? They were a political party identified with a large subset of the Founding Fathers, that didn’t outlive many of them. So to whatever extent the EC is a key component of Federalism, it’s dead.
Now if you really mean some small-f federalism, please define (people throw the term around in unclear ways), and explain how the screwy system of electoral votes somehow is a key component of it.
Well, of course not. That’s what we have three branches of government for - so we, the people, don’t have to vote on every bill before Congress, don’t have to decide, as a nation, whether a particular piece of legislation is Constitutional, etc. True democracy would be a disaster.
But electing a President and veep in a strictly democratic manner - can’t see what the big deal would be. We do the same for pretty much every other political office in the land.
If, for you, it really comes down to “I don’t have a problem with its being this way” - that’s nice, but this is GD, not IMHO. Define “superior.” What are your yardsticks for superior and inferior?
Interesting article recently posted about this topic…
because I have always lived in fairly to very low population density states, I have some sympathy for the EC method. If it were strait popular vote, low population areas would be politically worthless, and economically exploited. Federal mining, oil, etc. policy has a huge effect on the people of Wyoming and Alaska, for example…yet those would be written to the exclusive benefit of urban america if straight popular voting were the rule.
They’re politically worthless now. How much effort did presidential candidates expend in convincing the people of Wyoming or Vermont to vote for them in 2008? Barack Obama was elected in 2008 without any chance of getting Wyoming to vote for him, and if he’s re-elected this year he’ll still have received 0 electoral votes from Wyoming. If an area being politically worthless will lead to exploitation, what’s stopping the exploitation (or is it happening now)?
You can also add Truman in 1948.
And for good measure, throw in a couple of razor-thin popular vote majorities (1916, 1976) and you have seven out of the last two dozen elections that would have been tied up in recounts and probably gone to the House of Representatives to decide.
If you have a problem with the Electoral College, what do you think about a popular vote for POTUS having a better than 1 in 4 chance of ending up being decided by Congress?
But how will this affect the zombie vote?
In Chicago, it won’t!
What did you find interesting about the article?
That doesn’t sound great. Nor does it sound like much of an issue since it’s a feature of a system those people already believe in need of changing. Presumably they favor reforming the features they don’t like.
I view the president as being president of the country, not as presiding over the states. So I don’t support the electoral college. But I’d be open to a purely district-based electoral college.
My favorite is the one that makes the government truly representative of those it governs: random selection.
Whenever I see these discussions on the Electoral College I post this link:
A straight, popular vote is a really bad idea.
That said I think there are better options to our first-past-the-post voting method (e.g. preferential voting).
Still, no system is perfect and they all have their ups and downs. A straight popular vote is not one of the better ones.
The congressional district method of awarding electoral votes (currently used in Maine and Nebraska) would not help make every vote matter. In NC, for example, there are only 4 of the 13 congressional districts that would be close enough to get any attention from presidential candidates. In California, the presidential race has been competitive in only 3 of the state’s 53 districts. A smaller fraction of the country’s population lives in competitive congressional districts (about 12%) than in the current battleground states (about 30%) that now get overwhelming attention, while more than two-thirds of the states are ignored Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The National Popular Vote bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded by states in the Electoral College, instead of the current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all system (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states). It ensures that every vote is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of ‘battleground’ states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in more than 3/4ths of the states that now are just ‘spectators’ and ignored after the primaries.
When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via nationalpopularvoteinc
If I am reading this correctly (and correct me if I am wrong) this essentially neuters the EC and is a straight popular vote albeit with some window dressing to make it pass constitutional muster.
As I mentioned a straight popular vote is a Bad Idea[sup]tm[/sup]. It could (and probably would) lead to a tyranny of the majority. Something our Founding Fathers explicitly hoped to avoid.
Also, popularity does not make something a good thing. I realize a majority in the US favor a “popular vote” but that is largely because most probably have not studied the issue closely. It just “seems” fair so in their minds must be. The EC seems unfair so must be a bad idea. That is not necessarily the case.
And whenever I see that link (or others presenting the same math) I have to point out that the definition of “power” those folks use is completely unrelated to the conventional definition of that word, and by any more conventional definition the electoral college decreases the power of the people. You remember the whole bruhaha in Florida in 2000, how the fate of the nation swung on the status of a few hundred votes, and nobody could agree how those votes would turn out? The math in that link is working from the premise that that kind of chaos is a good thing, which should be encouraged.
That could happen in a popular vote too. If the vote is close people are going to go nuts over every last little ballot trying to determine who won.
Not seeing how a popular vote improves things.
Then why don’t we have tyranny of the majority now? The electoral college is actually a pretty weak-ass filter on the peoples’ wishes; the person who is sworn in on January 20th is very nearly always the person who got the most votes.
Did you read my link in post #53?
The quick answer is a candidate cannot pander to a simple majority. They need to pander to blocks of people in different places.
For instance the vast majority of the population is in urban centers. A simple majority would mean sucking up to city folk and ignore the issue of people in “flyover” states. Hell, even in places like Illinois the population is concentrated in Chicago but most of the state is rural.
Not saying that is a definitive example but it illustrates the issue.