# So, Hillary is ahead in the popular vote - any chance to finally reform the electoral college? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [November 9, 2016, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-hillary-is-ahead-in-the-popular-vote-any-chance-to-finally-reform-the-electoral-college/771226 "2016-11-09T16:14:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2016, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-hillary-is-ahead-in-the-popular-vote-any-chance-to-finally-reform-the-electoral-college/771226/21 "2016-11-09T23:31:59Z")
The Electoral College works exactly as designed. And thank goodness. Otherwise, voters in 90% or more of the country would become completely irrelevant, as opposed to situationally irrelevant, as is the case now. Just because a certain trend exists for the last several elections doesn’t mean it would always exist. The makeup of Democratic Party victories v. Republican Party victories on a state by state basis has changed often over the last 150 years. At the heart of such victories is always the fact that some significant portion of the geographical area has to be persuaded to go along with the party’s view. That would come to a crashing halt under a popular vote system. And I, for one, am not eager to see that happen. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2016, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-hillary-is-ahead-in-the-popular-vote-any-chance-to-finally-reform-the-electoral-college/771226/22 "2016-11-09T23:39:14Z")
> [@Twoflower](#): > > As of this morning, Hillary is [ahead](http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=span-abc-region®ion=span-abc-region&WT.nav=span-abc-region) 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. Not a chance. States matter and states won’t give up power. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2016, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-hillary-is-ahead-in-the-popular-vote-any-chance-to-finally-reform-the-electoral-college/771226/23 "2016-11-10T00:56:29Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > The Electoral College works exactly as designed. And thank goodness. Otherwise, voters in 90% or more of the country would become completely irrelevant I don’t understand this claim at all. Are you saying that politicians would only campaign in the most populous states? Why would that be the case when those states aren’t winner take all? You could work really hard to try to take 70% of the votes California instead of 60%, but that’s not going to give you a majority if you’re only taking 30% of the votes in all the small states since you completely ignored them. The _current_ system is where a huge number of voters are ignored in national elections – the ones who are in the minority party in all the safe states. ---
**Author:** ![That\_Don\_Guy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/that_don_guy/32/538_2.png) [@That\_Don\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/That_Don_Guy)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2016, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-hillary-is-ahead-in-the-popular-vote-any-chance-to-finally-reform-the-electoral-college/771226/24 "2016-11-10T01:54:13Z")
There’s one potential problem with any “popular vote” election; what stops a state from mandating that only the total number of votes cast and the name of the candidate that received the most votes in that state be announced “officially”? Without a Constitutional amendment mandating full vote announcements, even the National Popular Vote Compact could run into this problem. (“California has 8,920,845 votes for Hillary Clinton and none for anyone else - and that’s all we will say until January 21, 2017.”) ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2016, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-hillary-is-ahead-in-the-popular-vote-any-chance-to-finally-reform-the-electoral-college/771226/25 "2016-11-10T02:25:36Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > I don’t understand this claim at all. > > Are you saying that politicians would only campaign in the most populous states? Why would that be the case when those states aren’t winner take all? You could work really hard to try to take 70% of the votes California instead of 60%, but that’s not going to give you a majority if you’re only taking 30% of the votes in all the small states since you completely ignored them. > > The _current_ system is where a huge number of voters are ignored in national elections – the ones who are in the minority party in all the safe states. States won’t matter at all. It’s urban areas that matter. More than one-quarter of the entire population of the US resides in the top ten urban areas (as defined by their Statistical Metropolitan Areas). Capturing a significant amount of those areas is sufficient to win the election, unless the entirety of the rural US went almost wholly for a single candidate. Look at this contest just to give you an idea: Hillary Clinton had a 3M vote lead based on the top four states by population, and that doesn’t include the state with the #3 sized city (Chicago). Donald Trump won 31 states, with most of those small ones going very heavily for him, totally ignored by Hillary Clinton because: red. It wasn’t enough to catch up with her lead, which isn’t surprising since 3M is more than the population of each of the 20 smallest states. And, if I’m not mistaken, it’s more than the total votes cast in aggregate for the nine or ten smallest state totals. The framers of the Constitution understood well the potential for concentrating political power in the hands of the city-dwellers. They did a good job of disrupting that effort. The College is one way they did so. ---
**Author:** ![BlankSlate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blankslate/32/80_2.png) [@BlankSlate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlankSlate)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2016, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-hillary-is-ahead-in-the-popular-vote-any-chance-to-finally-reform-the-electoral-college/771226/26 "2016-11-10T02:49:03Z")
If the undemocratic electoral college is so great, why don’t we do it at the state level, county by county? One man/one vote is completely subverted by this abomination. FTR, I’ve been against it since long before 2000. Small states are already over-represented in the senate, All it adds up to is giving more power per vote for some, less for others. People should be penalized for living in a city? Fuck that noise. Let’s hear what Mr. Trump has to say about it, from 2012: > [@](#): > > The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy The way it’s going, Trump should be conceding soon. If he were a man of principle, that is. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2016, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-hillary-is-ahead-in-the-popular-vote-any-chance-to-finally-reform-the-electoral-college/771226/27 "2016-11-10T06:46:06Z")
> [@BlankSlate](#): > > If the undemocratic electoral college is so great, why don’t we do it at the state level, county by county? One man/one vote is completely subverted by this abomination. FTR, I’ve been against it since long before 2000. Small states are already over-represented in the senate, All it adds up to is giving more power per vote for some, less for others. People should be penalized for living in a city? Fuck that noise. > > Let’s hear what Mr. Trump has to say about it, from 2012: > > The way it’s going, Trump should be conceding soon. If he were a man of principle, that is. Why? Because when the colonies formed the United States the colonies decided how the rules would be. That’s why. You think the EU would ever form a federal union where it was strictly popular vote? Lol. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2016, 9:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-hillary-is-ahead-in-the-popular-vote-any-chance-to-finally-reform-the-electoral-college/771226/28 "2016-11-10T09:51:43Z")
I think it’s time to remind everyone about the conditions of our union, a contract which has not expired and can only be redone with the consent of everyone involved. One of the purposes of the EC that is still valid today is that a President must have broad support, not regional support. In this election, Donald Trump just had more than Clinton. He was strong in the South. He was strong in the West. He was strong in the Industrial Midwest. He even cracked the Northeast a little, winning Pennsylvania and being very competitive in New Hampshire. That being said, I’d be okay with a popular vote for President. After all, we elect senators by popular vote now. So why not the President. But, and this is a big one, no recounts. Recounts even in states are filled with acrimony and suspicions of foul play. And any statistician will tell you that a recount does not in fact reveal the actual count. Try counting a jar of M&Ms three times and then afterwards tell me how many marbles you’re sure there are. Now try counting a million jars. Another problem with federal elections is that rules would have to be uniform. Florida has a lot of early voting and thus had 70% turnout. New York has no early voting. Colorado has mail in voting. So you’d have to make the rules uniform. So I propose that rather than abolish the EC, we use it as the fallback. A President shall be elected if they are at least a full percentage point ahead of their nearest opponent in the popular vote. Should the race be within a percentage point, it shall be declared a virtual tie and the EC is the fallback and decides the President, allocated according to current rules. Determining whether the popular vote is within that one percentage point will be done simply by going with the first count. No recount. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2016, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-hillary-is-ahead-in-the-popular-vote-any-chance-to-finally-reform-the-electoral-college/771226/29 "2016-11-10T10:32:18Z")
> [@RandMcnally](#): > > I’d be fine with it. Small, worthless states really shouldn’t have so much say. Attitudes iike that are just what the Founding Fathers feared and in their wisdom provided a remedy against. All states in the new federation were deemed equal and would have an equal say, otherwise it wouldn’t have been a true federation. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2016, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-hillary-is-ahead-in-the-popular-vote-any-chance-to-finally-reform-the-electoral-college/771226/30 "2016-11-10T11:03:45Z")
Yes. And although you can change the rules, it’s such a fundamental part of the contract that even if most states want the change you have to give the dissenting states the opportunity to just exit the compact if they wish. That’s why our Constitution simply forbids states from losing their Senate representation, even by amendment. It’s such a fundamental change in the relationship between the states and the federal government that it would cancel the contract completely. ---
**Author:** ![Rigamarole](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/77aa72/32.png) [@Rigamarole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rigamarole)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2016, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-hillary-is-ahead-in-the-popular-vote-any-chance-to-finally-reform-the-electoral-college/771226/31 "2016-11-10T12:26:04Z")
So you think abolishing the electoral college will benefit the Democrats? And you’re going to get the 100% Republican-controlled 3-branch government juggernaut that just got put into place to go along with the idea? Good luck with that. ---
**Author:** ![RandMcnally](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b782af/32.png) [@RandMcnally](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandMcnally)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2016, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-hillary-is-ahead-in-the-popular-vote-any-chance-to-finally-reform-the-electoral-college/771226/32 "2016-11-10T13:08:01Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > Attitudes iike that are just what the Founding Fathers feared and in their wisdom provided a remedy against. All states in the new federation were deemed equal and would have an equal say, otherwise it wouldn’t have been a true federation. And as it stands now, large states are made less in importance. A single vote matters more proportionally in Wyoming than one does in California. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2016, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-hillary-is-ahead-in-the-popular-vote-any-chance-to-finally-reform-the-electoral-college/771226/33 "2016-11-10T13:11:09Z")
I’d note that the big states agreed to that to get the little states into the union. ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2016, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-hillary-is-ahead-in-the-popular-vote-any-chance-to-finally-reform-the-electoral-college/771226/34 "2016-11-10T13:32:10Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Why? Because when the colonies formed the United States the colonies decided how the rules would be. That’s why. You think the EU would ever form a federal union where it was strictly popular vote? Lol. I hear ya. The relationship of states and the union is complicated. You shouldn’t change one aspect without looking at all the others. ex. Maybe voters of other states should have a say in those things that California voters can do in their state if it impacts (directly or indirectly) them? ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2016, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-hillary-is-ahead-in-the-popular-vote-any-chance-to-finally-reform-the-electoral-college/771226/35 "2016-11-10T13:52:54Z")
The electoral college was created in a specific time and place. But when the political culture of the new nation changed (quite quickly) and they found that the old rules had some effects that were actually a little stupid, _they changed the way they elected their president_. Our political culture has changed a lot more since then. Universal suffrage has obviated a lot of the issues the electoral college was designed to smooth over. It wasn’t just “large states” and “small states.” There used to be states where a lot of men could vote and also states where only the rich men could vote. There used to be states where _nobody_ could vote in presidential elections. There used to be states where some people were property and their owners wanted to get to vote on their behalf. None of that is true any more. In a society where nobody is property and nearly every adult citizen is allowed to vote in every state and we expect that every state elects its presidential electors by a popular vote, the electoral college is simply a lot less important to our federal system. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2016, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-hillary-is-ahead-in-the-popular-vote-any-chance-to-finally-reform-the-electoral-college/771226/36 "2016-11-10T14:09:09Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > So states like California and New York can decide damn near every election? No thanks. This reeks of sour grapes. Well, mathematically, no. California has just eleven percent of the population, Texas (which you helpfully skipped, I wonder why) about eight percent, and the State of New York has only six percent of the population. You’re rather exaggerating the importance of any one state. The disadvantage of any system aside from popular vote is that you are making some people’s votes worth more than others. If you are okay with that, and you honestly believe a person from Montana should get three votes to every vote a Texan gets, I guess that’s your opinion, but I think it’s worth asking you why, in determining who the President should be, you do think Montanans should get three votes to every vote a Texan gets. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2016, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-hillary-is-ahead-in-the-popular-vote-any-chance-to-finally-reform-the-electoral-college/771226/37 "2016-11-10T14:13:49Z")
The same reason Montanans get more Senate votes than Texans. That was the compromise that formed the union. In order to change that, the small states have to consent. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2016, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-hillary-is-ahead-in-the-popular-vote-any-chance-to-finally-reform-the-electoral-college/771226/38 "2016-11-10T14:25:34Z")
I understand the history of it and why it’s essentially impossible to change. My question was related to why it’s right. ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2016, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-hillary-is-ahead-in-the-popular-vote-any-chance-to-finally-reform-the-electoral-college/771226/39 "2016-11-10T14:38:02Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > I understand the history of it and why it’s essentially impossible to change. My question was related to why it’s right. The discussion goes in endless and unproductive circles IMO trying to determine if something like this is ‘right’. Again, is the Senate arrangement ‘right’? That gives even more relative (federal) power to voters in WY than CA. The principal of either is that the states are sovereign entities in a union, not just administrative subdivisions. Again I think the view of this is _heavily_ colored by recency bias that the GOP has won at least one and now probably two recent presidential elections without a national plurality, similar explanation to why the complaint focuses on the more diluted state power in the EC rather than the purer form of it in 2 Senators per state. Another point, not strictly plus/minus for US system of federal union with a degree of equality for states\*, is that you can’t really say X ‘would have won’ the election because they got a popular plurality but EC minority, because the same campaign would not have been run if the system was different. \*again more than the equality of Canadian provinces, say, but less than the equality of EU states in that union (I know it’s not a country, but still its proponents see it as evolving toward one). ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2016, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-hillary-is-ahead-in-the-popular-vote-any-chance-to-finally-reform-the-electoral-college/771226/40 "2016-11-10T15:00:06Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > The president is supposed to be elected by people that we trust to be diligent, caring, and deliberated. Cite? This would be unconstitutional. The majority of the electorate in the U.S. have below average intelligence. Any attempt to exclude this group from voting would never succeed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-hillary-is-ahead-in-the-popular-vote-any-chance-to-finally-reform-the-electoral-college/771226.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-hillary-is-ahead-in-the-popular-vote-any-chance-to-finally-reform-the-electoral-college/771226.md?page=3)