Popular vote Vs. Electoral college

Great Debates
61

That would only work well if redistricting changed a lot. Nebraska and Maine can’t really be gerrymandered a whole lot, so it’s not a huge issue there (I haven’t even seen Nebraska’s redistricting plan, but I’ll bet that the districts are relatively compact and contain metro Omaha, the eastern 25% of the state, and the western 75% of the state), but in states like Ohio that have triumphantly partisan redistricting processes, district-based elections would still remove a lot of voters from the process.

My district will vote for a Republican in 2012, and in 2016, and in 2020. That’s actually okay, because I live in an area with a lot of Republicans; my new district is bizarrely compact compared to the others in the state. But right now, I can at least pool together with other Democrats and not be completely shut out because my district is a total lock. Ohio is quite valuable in the general election, so the candidates will spend quite a lot of time telling me how great they are. Under a district-based system, I would be worthless; Barack Obama wouldn’t care because my vote won’t turn 35% into 51%, and Mitt Romney would know that he could dump a steaming load on the courthouse stairs and be guaranteed at least 55%. (And that’s how the electoral college works in most states.)

Because the voters of the flyover states are such hot property right now?

62

What is that graphic showing us?

63

Sorry, hands are trips by presidential and vice presidential candidates in the last five weeks of the 2004 campaign, and dollar signs are millions of dollars spent on TV ads.

64

And that article, besides being very poorly written–not getting to the point until very late–is also horribly wrong. Power only makes sense when it is compared to that of others. There is no difference if my power is 500% greater than it is now if everyone else’s power is also 500% greater.

Any system that would claim a difference between putting votes randomly into equal sized groups and just counting those votes individually is inherently false.

What this guy did was create a mathematical theorem that agreed with his personal conclusion that an electoral college system was better, and to do so he created a fake variable that has no meaning. It’s math, so he didn’t test it to see if it actually resulted in anything. Heck, he didn’t even define how his system could be falsified. The one way that would seem to say that the system didn’t work: that some anomalies crop up, is stated to be a feature rather than a flaw.

This isn’t proving the system better by math. This is using math as political propaganda.

65

I see California ignored (biggest prize there is).

Illinois ignored (one of the top prizes for EC votes). Maine is getting more action.

New York looks neglected.

Iowa tons of action.

Minnesota a fair bit.

Wisconsin, Missouri, Kansas.

Sure they are not everywhere but neither are they devoted to only “big” states.

In the end it is swing states. Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio. Iowa in the last five weeks seems odd as does Minnesota but I am sure they have their reasons.

I am willing to bet Iowa has concerns different from New York and that is why our current system is better. If it was popular votes it’d be all about the big states and to hell with Iowa and Minnesota.

66

If you listen to many of the politicians elected in these states, it’s the Eastern Liberal do-gooders who prevented them from properly exploiting their natural wealth. I hear a lot more call for conservation and environmental protection from urban liberals than I do from anybody else. I think the Federal government has saved areas from becoming post-apocalyptic moonscapes.

Then again, I’ve spent most of my life living among… urban liberals.

67

That’s a good point. But I’m all in favor of nonpartisan redistricting regardless.

Of course, no matter the redistricting process, there will always be solid red and solid blue districts. But I’m not sure how that’s worse than it is now, with so many solid red/blue states. There would certainly be more competitive districts than there are competitive states.

68

Why is “to hell with New York” better than “to hell with Iowa”?

69

How can you not understand that this is pure propaganda? I’ve explained it to you time and again. Others have done so. The article is a deliberate attempt to deceive people into supporting the Electoral College. What will it take before you will cease spreading this ignorance?

If it’s so bad then why is every Representative, Senator, Governor, Mayor, and state legislator in the entire country elected by a straight popular vote? What is so magical about the presidency that invalidates the electoral form we use for every other election?

Tyranny of the majority is a silly concept. Certainly a majority can be tyrannical. So can a minority. So can a single person. Does that mean we should not trust electoral power to an individual, a minority, or even a majority? Of course not. If we are to have a representative government we must entrust the authority to elect representatives to someone.

Why is it so important where voters live? Can tyranny exist only on a geographic basis?

What fool would ignore potential voters simply because of where they lived? We have modern technology, after all. You don’t have to travel from door to door to appeal to voters. If all votes counted equally then nondumbass candidates would seek votes everywhere. Why worry about what the losers might be trying to do?

I’ve already explained why under a simple popular vote candidates would seek votes everywhere. Would you care to explain why you think it is OK for candidates to ignore California, Illinois, and New York?

Really this is the crux of my confusion about EC supporters. They express concern over people hypothetically being ignored under a direct election and yet every four years we see huge numbers of Americans being ignored. Hello! If you want everyone to have an equal say then give everyone an equal vote.

70

I don’t disagree with the apportionment of Congressional seats, and I think the Senate balancing the House is a really stellar example of some clever organization at play. I see no reason to suppose that this kind of thinking actually has the same meaning when electing the president, though I am not particularly upset by the matter. If I had to pick an issue to take a stand on, I’d much rather have approval voting for all elections than a straight popular vote for the presidency.

71

If you have explained it to me in the past I have forgotten (getting old I guess).

What will it take for me to stop spreading this ignorance?

Simple, a thought out and considered opinion that cites facts and/or reasons its way to a better conclusion.

What will NOT work is assertions from some anonymous person on a message board telling me I am ignorant and the ideas are bad without explaining why.

You are making assertions with nothing to back you up.

Our Founding Fathers thought this was a good idea. Earlier I cited some of their reasoning. While not infallible they were pretty bright guys. They explicitly avoided a direct democracy and created a republic.

If you think you know better fine. Step up and pit yourself against the wisdom of the founding fathers. Good luck.

(And I’ll state again the FFs were not infallible and we can certainly disagree with them but you had better bring your A-game if you want to debate them.)

72

It is a matter of scale.

There is a helluva difference between city elections or even state elections and national elections.

As the crowd grows larger the diversity of opinions and lifestyles and circumstances grows dramatically.

On a state level we even see some of the fissures. I live in Illinois and I can tell you the downstate people are decidedly not happy they are overwhelmed by the electoral power present in Chicago. Illinois is a decidedly rural, mostly farm state. It has one big city which dominates them all in the government.

IIRC California also has a movement which wants to separate the northern top of the state from the rest. They feel they have nothing in common with the people in the south but are overwhelmed in the state government by them. They’ll never succeed in separating but I can see their point.

Popular vote in action.

Wow! The ignorance is strong here.

I’ll quote Madison since he was better educated on this stuff and wrote a LOT better than I do:

It is important because people in a geographic area are likely to have some interests in common.

For instance a politician need not pander to Louisiana voters hit by a hurricane or oil spills. The people in that region, regardless of political stripe, share some common problems and issues they would like to see addressed. In a popular vote there is no need to go to Louisiana and address their issues.

See my previous comment.

Politicians have finite resources. They will not run to every state and talk to people if there is no need.

Who is ignored?

Gay people?

Black people?

Latino people?

Gun owning people?

Women people?

Men people?

Farmer people?

Banker people?

People who drive Segues people?

What people!?

73

With National Popular Vote, every vote would be equal. Candidates would reallocate the money they raise to no longer ignore 2/3rds of the states and voters.

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.
The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States. Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.

If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.

A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.

The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

With National Popular Vote, when every vote is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren’t so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.

Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don’t campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don’t control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn’t have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.

In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.

Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.

There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.

The National Popular Vote bill would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Candidates would have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.

74

Supporters of National Popular Vote find it hard to believe the Founding Fathers would endorse an electoral system where more than 2/3rds of the states and voters now are completely politically irrelevant. 9 of the original 13 states are ignored now. Presidential campaigns spend 98% of their resources in just 15 battleground states, where they aren’t hopelessly behind or safely ahead, and can win the bare plurality of the vote to win all of the state’s electoral votes. Now the majority of Americans, in small, medium-small, average, and large states are ignored. Virtually none of the small states receive any attention. None of the 10 most rural states is a battleground state. 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX are ignored. That’s over 85 million voters. Once the primaries are over, presidential candidates don’t visit or spend resources in 2/3rds of the states. Candidates know the Republican is going to win in safe red states, and the Democrat will win in safe blue states, so they are ignored. More than 85 million voters have been just spectators to the general election. States have the responsibility and power to make their voters relevant in every presidential election.

With national popular vote, with every vote equal, candidates will truly have to care about the issues and voters in all 50 states and DC. A vote in any state will be as sought after as a vote in Florida. Part of the genius of the Founding Fathers was allowing for change as needed. When they wrote the Constitution, they didn’t give us the right to vote, or establish state-by-state winner-take-all, or establish any method, for how states should award electoral votes. Fortunately, the Constitution allowed state legislatures to enact laws allowing people to vote and how to award electoral votes.

75

With the current state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, winning a bare plurality of the popular vote in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population, could win the Presidency with a mere 26% of the nation’s votes!

But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six “blue” states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

Among the 11 most populous states in 2004, the highest levels of popular support, hardly overwhelming, were found in the following seven non-battleground states:

  • Texas (62% Republican),
  • New York (59% Democratic),
  • Georgia (58% Republican),
  • North Carolina (56% Republican),
  • Illinois (55% Democratic),
  • California (55% Democratic), and
  • New Jersey (53% Democratic).

In addition, the margins generated by the nation’s largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:

  • Texas – 1,691,267 Republican
  • New York – 1,192,436 Democratic
  • Georgia – 544,634 Republican
  • North Carolina – 426,778 Republican
  • Illinois – 513,342 Democratic
  • California – 1,023,560 Democratic
  • New Jersey – 211,826 Democratic

To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004 – larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

76

Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don’t matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE --75%, ID -77%, ME - 77%, MT- 72%, NE - 74%, NH–69%, NE - 72%, NM - 76%, RI - 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT - 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%.

In the lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by three jurisdictions.

Of the 22 medium-lowest population states (those with 3,4,5, or 6 electoral votes), only 3 have been battleground states in recent elections-- NH, NM, and NV. These three states contain only 14 (8%) of the 22 medium-lowest population states’ total 166 electoral votes.

77

With the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, more than 2/3rds of the states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, 88% of the nation’s congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.

Dividing a state’s electoral votes by congressional district winners would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system.

If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country’s congressional districts.

The district approach would not provide incentive for presidential candidates to campaign in a particular state or focus the candidates’ attention to issues of concern to the state. With the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all laws (whether applied to either districts or states), candidates have no reason to campaign in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. In North Carolina, for example, there are only 2 districts (the 13th with a 5% spread and the 2nd with an 8% spread) where the presidential race is competitive. In California, the presidential race has been competitive in only 3 of the state’s 53 districts. Nationwide, there have been only 55 “battleground” districts that were competitive in presidential elections.

Awarding electoral votes by congressional district could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.

Because there are generally more close votes on district levels than states as whole, district elections increase the opportunity for error. The larger the voting base, the less opportunity there is for an especially close vote.

Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.

A national popular vote is the way to make every person’s vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.

78

The Electoral College is now the set of dedicated party activists, who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state. This is not what the Founding Fathers intended.

The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.

The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”

The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.

Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.

In 1789, in the nation’s first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state’s electoral votes.

As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.
The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.

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.

The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote.
National Popular Vote has NOTHING TO DO with direct democracy. Direct democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly. With National Popular Vote, citizens would continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.

79

I’ll take that further: if there’s an absolute worst method among the assorted democratic-appearing methods of choosing a President, Congressional districts has to be the champ.

Think for a minute about how Congressional districts are drawn in most states. Take a 50-50 state with 5 CDs. If one party is drawing the districts, and can design one district so that it favors the other party by 90-10, then they can draw the other 4 districts to favor their own party by 60-40.

It’s bad enough that the balance of power in Congress can be affected by such shenanigans. I hardly want to open up the Presidency to them too. The way the state lines are drawn isn’t always ideal for democracy, but at least the lines don’t change with every Census.

80

The only argument for the electoral college that resonates with me in this day and age is that the system doesn’t encourage all the dead people in a state to vote because it won’t encourage the corruption of the counting in other states.