As of this morning, Hillary is ahead in the popular vote by about 175,000. Is there any hope that this will finally create some serious pressure to reform/do away with the electoral college?
Sadly, I don’t see how those who benefit from the situation are going to have any motivation to give up that power.
And those who benefit are the small states with disproportionate power in the Electoral College.
Three fourths of the states must approve an amendment whether taking the route via Congress or via a Constitutional Convention. Zero chance the small states would slit their own throats this way.
Do you really want a NATIONAL recount in a case like this because I guaranty that will happen.
I’d be fine with it. Small, worthless states really shouldn’t have so much say.
But it’ll never pass.
No the system won’t change. This will drive reapportionment of electors and districts.
So states like California and New York can decide damn near every election? No thanks. This reeks of sour grapes.
As has been mentioned, the chance of 3/4’s of state legislatures, many of them decreasing the influence of the people who elected them, passing an amendment for national popular vote is 0.0%.
However, I do expect a renewed push for the NPVIC to pass in various states as end run around the amendment process.
Ever since 2000, when GWB won (for purposes of this discussion, at least) the Electoral College while losing the popular vote, the EC has been sacrosanct in the conservative mind.
That was starting to fade, as best as I could tell. I’m sure this will have conservatives genuflecting to the EC once again.
So you’ve got both that and the extreme reluctance of small states to give up their overvaluation in the EC. So give it another 15-20 years before we can even consider doing anything about the EC.
No chance whatsoever this will change anything.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
The Democrats have now won the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 elections (assuming Clinton’s lead holds up), but have only won 4 of those elections. So I would assume that electoral college reform will now become a partisan issue, and is therefore unlikely to happen.
Actually, doing away with the electoral college would give more say to those who are in the minority in every state. Republicans in California and New York would actually matter in the Presidential election, as would Democrats in Texas. And of course it means everyone’s vote would be worth the same, rather than disproportionately weighting them based on the size of the state.
It’s not sour grapes for those of us (like me) who have been against the electoral college for years.
I agree that it isn’t going to happen soon, but I do think this increases the likelihood that someday when the Democrats have more power they will eliminate the electoral college.
a) Exactly, I agree. I fail to see how the Electoral College benefits the small states. Bigger is better. What am I missing here?
b) Shouldn’t the popular vote speak for itself? What’s wrong with?
Maybe this is pointing out the obvious, but if yesterday’s election had been a popular vote rather than an electoral vote, that doesn’t mean that Hillary would necessarily have won. Both parties based their campaigns on the fact that the vote would go through the electoral college. That was part of their strategy. If it were a pure popular vote, their strategies would have changed, and no doubt the vote totals would have changed as well.
Yeah, pretty much this. The campaigns are built around the current system, if changed then they would spend all their time in the big states. We can’t do a controlled experiment and see what would have happened if the rules had been changed in the past.
Flawed as the EC is, it provides a definitive result. Going to strict PV would guarantee at some point a national recount.
My personal favorite reform would keep the EC, but do away with the “extra” two electors that states now have. This would have reversed the 2000 result, but I haven’t run the numbers to see if it would have made last night come out different. This does prevent the prospect of a “nation-wide Florida”, but is fairer than the current system.
But, as has been said, there’s no chance of such reform. People might be willing to give something up in the national interest, but not politicians.
One of the big problems with that is that it would encourage further regionalism. Fact is Trump had broader cross region appeal, and in a big country, you need that to hold the nation together, both figuratively and literally.
Even for last nite, its now still only 5 out of 58 elections with a sub-plurality winner.
Not the big states. The big cities. If the election was based on popular vote, then state boundaries would be irrelevant, and campaigning would focus on concentrations of voters.
a) There’s a clear fact you are missing. States get an EV for each of their Senators and Congressman, and all states get two Senators no matter their population. So the Senate gives much more relative power to voters in small population states, the House gives none, the EC is a hybrid of the two.
b) this is a matter of opinion. By the same token one could, and actually should logically, first argue to abolish the Senate or perhaps have an upper house with longer terms than the lower, but also sized and apportioned like the House, or just have the House.
The reason why not is the originalist belief that the US states are sovereign entities in a union, not just subdivisions like provinces or counties in highly centralized countries (like the UK for example). Then to the extent one accepts that idea, it’s a judgment call where the line should be drawn. In other relatively decentralized unions (Germany, Canada etc) the lander or provinces have their own authority resembling US states but it doesn’t extend directly to national leadership elections. In the even more decentralized union of the EU (albeit not a country) some things require every sovereign of the union to agree, influence for small countries in the union far beyond the disproportionate influence of US small states.
But as Fotheringay-Phipps said, it’s become a partisan issue in the US. I charitably view Democrats as just non-self aware if they really believe they’d be against the way the EC is constructed if they’d won a couple of recent elections without a popular plurality. And the same applies to Republicans.
The problem isn’t too much Electoral College, it’s too little Electoral College.
The president is supposed to be elected by people that we trust to be diligent, caring, and deliberated. Instead, your drunk uncle and the guy in the insane asylum are two votes to your one.
Why? Vermont, Rhode Island, and Hawaii enacted the National Popular Vote Compact, so some of them think it’s a good idea.
This is why I think it won’t happen.