That’s how the electoral college works, though. The president is whoever wins the bigger chunk of votes from the small number of large and close states.
Here is a map of ad spending in the 2012 election. It shows…a handful of (mostly) large states making all the decisions for the country as a whole. The way to empower the small states is to let them vote in the same election as the voters in Florida and Ohio.
We would need to be very careful. One argument against is the 2000 election. So close nationwide, ultra close in one state. At least the EC confined the recount mess to FL. Can you imagine the chaos if we’d had straight popular vote then. D’s and R’s would still be looking for the hundred odd votes here or there. (I exaggerate for effect, but probably only slightly.) I’d favor keeping the EC, getting rid of the two “extra” votes every state gets (would have changed 2000, but not 2016) and making the EC votes proportionally allocated.
Maybe after 200+ years it’s also time to look at state boundaries. Maybe force Wyoming to combine with one or more of its neighbors while busting up CA. Or as Bill Maher has said: “Why do we need two Dakotas?”
So, instead we have smaller states making all of the decisions for the country as a whole. How is that “better”, especially for the people in the larger states?
Population records aren’t all that great as you go far back in time, but if you look at the electoral college map from the 1820 election, the spread isn’t quite as wide as it is today, but it’s still really wide. And the relative spread in population between the largest and smallest state wasn’t all that different either.
I think they had a pretty good idea of what they were doing.
The exact opposite is true. Far from confining the recount mess to Florida, the EC turned the Florida mess into a mess for the entire country. And while it’s theoretically possible that a popular vote would produce a result as razor-thin as the 2000 Florida result, it’s far less likely, enough so that even though the resulting mess would be larger, the expected amount of mess is still significantly less.
Incidentally, you may have heard mathematical arguments in favor of the electoral college, saying that it gives everyone more power. Those arguments are based on a peculiar definition of “power”, and what they really mean by “more power” is that debacles like FL 2000 are more likely.
BTW are there any states that have a house or senate where every county has an equal number of people representing that county? I know that is not true here in NC.
I’m pretty sure that some genius already invented the arcane process known as “addition”. Admittedly, it might take a supercomputer or something to apply the process to fifty-some input numbers, but I’m sure the top men will figure it out.
Here’s the problem with calls to reform the way we choose a President:
The only “problem” with have with the current system is that, occasionally, it doesn’t do what some people want it to do.
But that’s not a real “problem”; that simply a disappointment on the part of a certain segment of the population.
If you want to make cogent arguments against the system, I suggest pointing not to 2000, or to 2016, but to 1876. That election had a huge negative effect upon the country as a whole, and showed exactly how the system might manage to screw up entirely. But the trouble with using 1876 as a point in favor of revamp is that nothing like that has ever happened since. So it may simply be a one-off, not worthy of “fixing”.
As for 2000 and 2016, the only people who don’t like that result are the people who’s party lost those races: Democrats. And not even all Democrats are convinced from the result that the EC is a bad idea. After all, the Democratic Party used the EC to its advantage through much of the 20th Century, having started with a consolidated bloc of votes from southern states, thus narrowing the contest for them to win. Under the circumstances, I’m not impressed with the arguments in favor of changing the system, as they are merely the grumblings of sore losers, IMO.
So the other two elections when the popular vote was thwarted by the EC were also close together, 1876&1888. Does anyone know if there was any meaningful calls for abolishing the Electoral College back then?
By some, you of course, mean the plurality of voters.
Yes, the larger part.
How has the Democratic party used the EC to its advantage? Please name one election in the 20th century what the democratic president got a smaller number of votes, and yet won the presidency.
The EC was put into place because the FF didn’t trust the people not to be fooled by a populist demagogue. They were the final check, a check that was constitutionally protected to not be necessarily democratic. They are elected by the people to make that judgment, not to blindly cast their vote.
Their specific job is to prevent someone like Trump for ascending to the highest position in the nation. If they had carried out that function, if they had skipped over Trump for Pence, or any another republican, then they would have justified their job, and they would have justified the handful of upsets that their presence has created.
As they did not do their job in protecting the office of the presidency from a populist demagogue, they have no function other than to be manipulated by whatever politics manage to swing some state or another.
The EC doesn’t give power to small states, it only gives power to swing states. You pretty much have 5 states, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and mostly the first two, that actually have any power.
How does that help Iowa or North Dakota get represented?
I say make it proportional to popular vote. That way if a state has 3EVs, then the winner (unless he/she exceeds 2/3 of the vote) would always get 2 votes and the loser 1 vote. Then Republicans can’t count on Alaska, Montana, the Dakotas, etc. as easy 3 EVs each.
For real. It’s like some people don’t understand the entire underpinnings of a democratic republic.
Yeah, when you lose an election, you get upset. Duh. But when you lose an election even though you’re in the majority, that’s an extra reason to be upset.
We haven’t welcomed a Republican into the White House via winning the majority in thirty years: the only two that won, won through a trick of the electoral college. It’s moving us away from being a democratic republic, in which the people get to choose their own government.
Coupled with the optimized mathematics of computerized gerrymandering, we’re moving farther and farther into a system more akin to a third-world country in which an ethnic minority (or, in our case, political minority) rules over the larger, unwilling populace.
No wonder politics are getting so angry.
The present problem with EC is that some states are so clearly decided even before the candidates have been chosen that those which are mid-level and swing-ey are the real contests. California, Texas and NY are basically non-entities in elections. It’s an artifact of the two-party system and the political divisions. If these three big state came into play, then 10,000 people in one small state wouldn’t change results.
Bill Clinton didn’t win a majority in either of his elections either.
Did he get more or less votes than his opponent?
If he got less than his opponent, then you have discovered not only the hypocrisy of the liberals, but also a fact that historians have been overlooking for decades. You could win a Pulitzer.
If he got more than his opponent, then, at best, you win a prize for pointing out the pedantic and irrelevant…
Or you win a prize for championing “first past the post” with such spirit. The word used was “majority”. It’s not pendantic to point out Clinton didn’t garner a majority. Especially when in a French style popular vote system, he probably would have lost.
Alternatively, it’s like some people don’t understand the entire underpinnings of this specific democratic republic, and that it wouldn’t even exist without something like the EC. And that we should ask ourselves if it would continue to exist without it.
Is there any innacrucay in that post?
Did he claim that Clinton got a majority?
You aren’t even correcting him, just making a statement that you think is correcting what you think he is saying.
There are reasons why, at the time, a compromise was made that included the EC. Hard to say that the country would not have existed without this particular compromise.
But, we would have to ask ourselves if, in this time and place, whether it is a necessary part of this democratic republic.
The implication in your last sentence is that you have doubts as to whether our country would continue to exist without the EC. Can you explain how having the president elected by the people of all the states, rather than just 3-5, would cause the country to stop existing?
Why isn’t “Ignore the constitution and ram it through via civil war” an option?
38 states aren’t going to ratify this. That’s just not happening. Ever. What a pointless exercise.
His very clear implication was that only Republicans had been elected to the presidency without a majority. So yes, I was correcting that.
