# The electoral votes system make voting seem meaningless. **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [May 10, 2016, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-electoral-votes-system-make-voting-seem-meaningless/754480 "2016-05-10T12:42:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2016, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-electoral-votes-system-make-voting-seem-meaningless/754480/61 "2016-05-12T04:51:40Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Just a side question: would it have been less odious as a 0/5 rule or 5/5? It’s a question a lot of people don’t get right – I was one of them until some years ago, when a SDMB thread helped fight my ignorance. The anti-slavery faction, back in 1787, would have preferred 0/5. The slave states would have preferred 5/5. The rule isn’t saying, “Oh, those negroes and Indians, they’re only worth 3/5 of a real man,” but, instead, “If you won’t give them the right to vote or own property, then you don’t get to count them as whole persons for the purpose of representation in Congress.” Also…answered already by **Lord Feldon**. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2016, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-electoral-votes-system-make-voting-seem-meaningless/754480/62 "2016-05-12T17:48:01Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > There are a lot of things that “aren’t fair” that we accept, because the alternatives would be worse. Sure. But I’m not saying “oh, it’s unfair, therefore we have to fix it, there must be a better alternative”. I’m objecting to other people who are claiming that in fact it IS fair and good. > [@](#): > > Same with the EC. Okay, it isn’t “fair,” but without it, we wouldn’t have our constitution at all right now, but some other form of government entirely. The compromise was necessary. It’s like the odious 3/5 rule and the rule that said slavery couldn’t even be addressed by amendment. There was no possibility of national unity without 'em. As I have acknowledged repeatedly. But that’s a historical justification, that has nothing to do with whether or not it’s fair and good now. > [@](#): > > I agree with the others here, that it is well that we give Wyoming an artificial advantage, rather than reduce them to absolute inconsequence. But they are no more or less consequential than everyone else. Sure, all the residents of Wyoming, together, have less influence on a presidential election than all of the residents of California, together. But that’s how it should be, there are fewer of them. Similarly, all the Jews in the USA together have less influence than all of the Christians. That’s what happens in a democracy when there more people in one group than another. Another issue, by the way… in the first US census in 1790, the size ratio of the largest state (by population) (PA and VA) to the smallest state (Delaware) was about 10 to 1. Currently, the size ratio of the largest state (CA) to the smallest (WY) is 66 to 1. > [@](#): > > I don’t agree that, without the electoral balance, NY and LA would dominate. It would actually be the top dozen media markets. Which is to say, the point was completely valid. Big cities would become the de facto “electoral districts.” This would shift the Presidential race significantly in the “blue” direction. First of all, the whole “media markets” thing is VASTLY less important now than it was a few years back, given how much advertising goes through the internet. It’s no more expensive to target a message to a million farmers scattered all over the US than it is to a million residents of NYC. That said, I think you’re overlooking something, which is that because of the winner-take-all nature of the current system, we tend to think of the big coastal cities as solid blue. And sure, there are more democrats than republicans in LA. But it’s not 90-10. There are millions and millions of red-leaning voters in New York and LA and San Francisco. Currently, no one bothers with them in presidential elections, but if suddenly big cities were in play, then it would be both the red and blue voters in the big cities that are in play. Currently, increasing voter turnout among Republicans in LA by 5% is 100% guaranteed to be pointless, but that would no longer be the case if the presidential election was straight popular vote. ---
**Author:** ![control-z](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/eada6e/32.png) [@control-z](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/control-z)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2016, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-electoral-votes-system-make-voting-seem-meaningless/754480/63 "2016-05-12T17:56:47Z")
The boondoggle begins during the primaries, like how [Nebraska already settled their delegate pledges back in March for Sanders](http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/279468-clinton-wins-nebraska-primary-but-gets-no-delegates), even though Clinton won 59% of the primary vote on Tuesday. How can the Nebraska Democratic party even pretend their delegates follow the will of the voters if they pick their candidate months before the primary? ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2016, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-electoral-votes-system-make-voting-seem-meaningless/754480/64 "2016-05-12T18:16:59Z")
> [@control-z](#): > > The boondoggle begins during the primaries, like how [Nebraska already settled their delegate pledges back in March for Sanders](http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/279468-clinton-wins-nebraska-primary-but-gets-no-delegates), even though Clinton won 59% of the primary vote on Tuesday. How can the Nebraska Democratic party even pretend their delegates follow the will of the voters if they pick their candidate months before the primary? Sanders won the caucus voters. Not sure why they bother with a show primary but clearly Nebraska is really just a caucus State. So? ---
**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:** [May 12, 2016, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-electoral-votes-system-make-voting-seem-meaningless/754480/65 "2016-05-12T18:40:10Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Take a moment to consider how Orwellian a statement that is. You refuse to understand history when you dismiss answers you don’t like. It’s very simple. States precede the union as legal entities and have their own rights and interests. There would not be a United States as we know it if states didn’t voluntarily join a union. Therefore, it’s not surprising that the framework of a union of states has explicit rules with regards to power. Your point of view is that we are a nation of individuals and state boundaries are apparently meaningless. That’s self-evidently an incorrect point of view to hold and to use as an axiom for fair outcomes. TLDR. States are real. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2016, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-electoral-votes-system-make-voting-seem-meaningless/754480/66 "2016-05-12T18:41:49Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > State compacts have to be approved by Congress, which has yet to approve the NPV compact. Only in the case where an issue of federal supremacy is involved (such as creating an interstate agency with police powers.) There’s no constitutional problem with a group of states getting together and saying “we’re all going to pass a law that does X” if X is within their exclusive jurisdiction, and the method of choosing Electors 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:** [May 12, 2016, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-electoral-votes-system-make-voting-seem-meaningless/754480/67 "2016-05-12T18:49:38Z")
> [@dtilque](#): > > You ever hear “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”? It’s Orwellian in exactly that sense. And guess who wrote that… Except it isn’t. In Animal Farm like in communism there was a pretense that everyone was equal the reality being some were more equal. In matters of US governance the constitution clearly has several aspects that are for the benefits of states as a state not as a per person benefit. There is no deception involved. Everyone with an 8th grade education should know this stuff. It’s not even a complicated concept. All it requires is a little knowledge of history and remembering that the individual states prior to forming a union had their own interests. It would have been a different story if the states formed a new country that upon formation dispensed with old borders, state law, charters, etc. But that’s not how it happened. Are you all proposing to dissolve the states? ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2016, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-electoral-votes-system-make-voting-seem-meaningless/754480/68 "2016-05-12T21:03:41Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > You refuse to understand history when you dismiss answers you don’t like. It’s very simple. States precede the union as legal entities and have their own rights and interests. There would not be a United States as we know it if states didn’t voluntarily join a union. Therefore, it’s not surprising that the framework of a union of states has explicit rules with regards to power. Your point of view is that we are a nation of individuals and state boundaries are apparently meaningless. That’s self-evidently an incorrect point of view to hold and to use as an axiom for fair outcomes. > > TLDR. States are real. I have literally no idea what point you think you’re making. I can see one of several different positions one might hold: (a) Voters in Wyoming have outsized per-capita influence in presidential elections. That’s just the way it is due to history. “Fair” and “right” ain’t got nothing to do with it. (b) Voters in Wyoming have outsized per-capita influence in presidential elections, and that’s a good thing, because the USA benefits from that diversity of voices. Now, I believe that (a) is true. Are you saying you believe (b) to be true? Because if so, it seems like an awfully fortunate coincidence that when the state lines were drawn over a century ago, long before the current population numbers and demographics could possibly have been predicted, they just happened to end up in such a way that these 600K Wyomingites ended up in their box, because they are diverse and good and deserving of extra influence; while some random group of 600K Californians who live outside the big urban areas and have rural small town values are NOT special and do NOT have opinions that deserve this same weighting. I mean, it’s really remarkable that it worked out that way! ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2016, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-electoral-votes-system-make-voting-seem-meaningless/754480/69 "2016-05-12T21:13:24Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Sure. But I’m not saying “oh, it’s unfair, therefore we have to fix it, there must be a better alternative”. I’m objecting to other people who are claiming that in fact it IS fair and good. . . . I take the in-between view that, although it is unfair, it is actually good. A little like affirmative action. > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > . . . I can see one of several different positions one might hold: > (a) Voters in Wyoming have outsized per-capita influence in presidential elections. That’s just the way it is due to history. “Fair” and “right” ain’t got nothing to do with it. > > (b) Voters in Wyoming have outsized per-capita influence in presidential elections, and that’s a good thing, because the USA benefits from that diversity of voices. . . . I agree with (b.) I don’t agree with (a) the way you phrased it, but would say the system was devised consciously with certain things in mind, and these, while slightly unfair, are intended to offset a (potentially) worse unfairness if the were lacking. There’s also a (c) to keep in mind: the system cannot be changed. The amendment process would never get past those same small states that benefit from the EC. So “that’s just the way it is due to a change-proof number of states.” Which is close to “that’s the way it is due to history.” ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2016, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-electoral-votes-system-make-voting-seem-meaningless/754480/70 "2016-05-12T21:31:37Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > I agree with (b.) But the thing is, it’s a zero-sum game. The voices of Wyomingans being loudened means that the voice of everyone else is proportionally softened. And some of those people are groups of people who, on their surface, are just as deserving of loudening as Wyomingans. I think the default position is one man one vote. If you want to convince me that some particular groups of Americans, for some reason or other, deserve to have their voices loudened, because they present such an important diverse voice, or deserve to be lifted up to atone for historical mistreatment, well, I might be willing to listen to such an argument. For instance, maybe Native American tribes might be deserving of a slight weighting. Or descendants of slaves. Or all of Puerto Rico. Or something. Maybe that could be a good thing overall. But for that to perfectly correspond to the accident of how state lines were drawn over a century ago and how populations have grown in those regions since then is just too good to be true. Hey, remember when there was a civil war, and that caused West Virginia to split off from Virginia? Well, it’s a darn good thing that that happened, because that means that West Virginians get a boost to their vote influence. And they deserve it! In fact, one of the slogans of the West Viriginians who chose to split off from the Confederacy was “150 years from now, we’d like the people who live on this land, a few of whom will actually be our direct descendants, to have slightly outsized political influence in presidential elections! Freeeeeeeeeedom!!!”. Just like the framers of the constitution planned it! ---
**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:** [May 12, 2016, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-electoral-votes-system-make-voting-seem-meaningless/754480/71 "2016-05-12T21:49:47Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > But the thing is, it’s a zero-sum game. The voices of Wyomingans being loudened means that the voice of everyone else is proportionally softened. And some of those people are groups of people who, on their surface, are just as deserving of loudening as Wyomingans. > > I think the default position is one man one vote. If you want to convince me that some particular groups of Americans, for some reason or other, deserve to have their voices loudened, because they present such an important diverse voice, or deserve to be lifted up to atone for historical mistreatment, well, I might be willing to listen to such an argument. For instance, maybe Native American tribes might be deserving of a slight weighting. Or descendants of slaves. Or all of Puerto Rico. Or something. Maybe that could be a good thing overall. > > But for that to perfectly correspond to the accident of how state lines were drawn over a century ago and how populations have grown in those regions since then is just too good to be true. > > Hey, remember when there was a civil war, and that caused West Virginia to split off from Virginia? Well, it’s a darn good thing that that happened, because that means that West Virginians get a boost to their vote influence. And they deserve it! In fact, one of the slogans of the West Viriginians who chose to split off from the Confederacy was “150 years from now, we’d like the people who live on this land, a few of whom will actually be our direct descendants, to have slightly outsized political influence in presidential elections! Freeeeeeeeeedom!!!”. > > Just like the framers of the constitution planned it! See your axiom of one person one vote is where you are wrong. States themselves have rights and that aspect of history will not change because it would require a super majority of states, most of whom would suffer a loss of power, to agree. The US was not founded as a democracy and it has never been a democracy. Plus most people in the US who are in favor of a popular vote still aren’t consistent enough in their ideology to extend that belief universally and are perfectly content to live in a country with disproportionate international influence. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2016, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-electoral-votes-system-make-voting-seem-meaningless/754480/72 "2016-05-12T21:56:43Z")
I don’t know. Just seems obvious to me when you have such a vast country that there should be a nod to giving regions a bit more weight than pure population count would give. No country is a pure democracy, how can one man one vote be the default when that never happens? The ideal is that everyone feels they have a voice in the direction of the nation. I don’t think that ideal would necessarily be served if the system went straight popular vote. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2016, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-electoral-votes-system-make-voting-seem-meaningless/754480/73 "2016-05-12T22:11:04Z")
Except the Constitution _isn’t_ about creating a union of states. It’s right there at the start: “We the People”. It’s not “We the States”, or even “We the Peoples”. > [@](#): > > Quoth **E-DUB** : > > With no Electoral College we’d still be recounting the votes from 2000. A race that close nationally would have candidates looking to pick up votes everywhere. Elections so close that they need recounts are a direct result of the Electoral College system. While they theoretically could happen in a direct popular vote, they’d be vastly less likely. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2016, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-electoral-votes-system-make-voting-seem-meaningless/754480/74 "2016-05-12T22:16:12Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > No country is a pure democracy Plenty of countries have direct election of their president, or the equivalent. France, for instance. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2016, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-electoral-votes-system-make-voting-seem-meaningless/754480/75 "2016-05-12T22:18:12Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Except the Constitution _isn’t_ about creating a union of states. It’s right there at the start: “We the People”. It’s not “We the States”, or even “We the Peoples”. …of the United States. I mean are you serious? ---
**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:** [May 12, 2016, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-electoral-votes-system-make-voting-seem-meaningless/754480/76 "2016-05-12T22:18:17Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Except the Constitution _isn’t_ about creating a union of states. It’s right there at the start: “We the People”. It’s not “We the States”, or even “We the Peoples”. > Elections so close that they need recounts are a direct result of the Electoral College system. While they theoretically could happen in a direct popular vote, they’d be vastly less likely. You might want to read some history instead of just a preamble. Tell me how you’d parse the 10th amendment in proper historic context? ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2016, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-electoral-votes-system-make-voting-seem-meaningless/754480/77 "2016-05-12T22:26:28Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Elections so close that they need recounts are a direct result of the Electoral College system. While they theoretically could happen in a direct popular vote, they’d be vastly less likely. Leaving aside the elections that went to the House, and the corrupt bargain of 1876, there have been six elections with a popular vote margin of less than one percentage point, including Kennedy, Nixon’s first election, and the younger Bush’s first election. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2016, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-electoral-votes-system-make-voting-seem-meaningless/754480/78 "2016-05-12T22:40:36Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Plenty of countries have direct election of their president, or the equivalent. France, for instance. Well, technically a pure democracy is the people voting on every issue rather than representative. BTW, did you know: > [@](#): > > In order to be admitted as an official candidate, potential candidates must receive signed nominations (informally known as parrainages, for “godfathering”) from more than 500 elected officials, mostly mayors. These officials must be from at least 30 départements or overseas collectivities, and no more than 10% of them should be from the same département or collectivity.[3] Furthermore, each official may nominate only one candidate > **[President of France](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_France#Election)** > > The president of France, officially the president of the French Republic (French: Président de la République française), is the executive head of state of France, and the commander-in-chief of the French Armed Forces. As the presidency is the supreme magistracy of the country, the position is the highest office in France. The powers, functions and duties of prior presidential offices, in addition to their relation with the prime minister and government of France, have over time differed with th... So France has some built in concern for regional support of a president. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2016, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-electoral-votes-system-make-voting-seem-meaningless/754480/79 "2016-05-12T22:51:26Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > But the thing is, it’s a zero-sum game. The voices of Wyomingans being loudened means that the voice of everyone else is proportionally softened. . . . Agreed…but this somewhat compensates for there being so few people for each citizen of Wyoming to have influence over. People in cities partake much more of the great conversation than people on farms. The farm states are at a (small) disadvantage in the forming of consensus. > [@](#): > > And some of those people are groups of people who, on their surface, are just as deserving of loudening as Wyomingans. . . . That’s true too, alas. We address some of this in re-districting, although usually overcompensating via Gerrymandering, and usually along partisan lines, and not along lines of real need. There have been court rulings against diluting minority groups by districting lines, so the system is aware of the problem and is working on it. (Not always in the right way…) ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2016, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-electoral-votes-system-make-voting-seem-meaningless/754480/80 "2016-05-12T23:26:06Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Agreed…but this somewhat compensates for there being so few people for each citizen of Wyoming to have influence over. People in cities partake much more of the great conversation than people on farms. The farm states are at a (small) disadvantage in the forming of consensus. Even if I thought that made sense, which I certainly don’t in this era of social media, the advantage is not given to states with low population density, but to states with low population. Do citizens of Delaware have trouble finding neighbors to talk to? Taking a step back for a second, what I object to is not someone supporting the current system for any of various reason, it’s the claim that in a hypothetical direct election of the president suddenly only people in the big cities would matter, or rhetoric of that sort. And it’s almost always presented as cities on the coast (presumably liberal) suddenly having making all the decisions for people in the center of the country (presumably conservative). Sure, there are 20 million people in the New York City metro area. And everyone knows that they’re all (gasp) liberals!!! Why, how would the poor 600K residents of Wyoming ever have their say about anything? Except that you can make precisely the same argument with any group of 20 million vs 600K. Oh noes, there are 20 million people in Virginia and North Carolina put together. How will the poor 800K residents of San Francisco ever have their say about anything? My point being, yes, it takes away some special protections that Wyoming currently has. But let’s not pretend that it’s anything about fairness or people-not-being-heard, because if that were the case then that same argument would apply just as well in any number of different directions. Currently Wyoming (and other small states) have a special advantage. That advantage exists for real and meaningful political and historical reasons. But there’s no reason to think that that advantage is all that stands between the citizens of Wyoming and suffering horrible rule-of-the-majority tyranny… and the proof is the fact that there are plenty of 600K-strong groupings of citizens who do NOT enjoy the special benefit of being the entire population of a small state, and they’re doing just fine. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-electoral-votes-system-make-voting-seem-meaningless/754480.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-electoral-votes-system-make-voting-seem-meaningless/754480.md?page=5)