The U.S. Electoral College - What Should Be Done?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@DSYoungEsq

One of the sad facts of life is that you don’t always get to win. How you deal with loss is a part of your character, in my opinion. You can whine and complain, you can demand that the system change to give you what you want, etc. Or, you can simply roll up your sleeves and work to do better next time.

This is at once profoundly condescending and profoundly incorrect. Cool job.

The reason I oppose a system that grants rule to the minority isn’t because I’m in the majority–it’s because that’s a bad system. It would remain a bad system if I were in the minority that held power.

So, y’know, you could drop the condescension already and pay attention instead to the arguments folks were making.

[k9bfriender]

@DSYoungEsq

No.

You make an unfounded assumption: that everyone who voted for the Democratic Party running mates would prefer a system that allowed those candidates to win to the present system. That’s patently untrue. I know for a fact it is untrue (you can probably figure out why I can say that).

I make a very valid assumption that the people who voted for the Democratic Party would prefer to have the candidates that they voted for to win.

One of the sad facts of life is that you don’t always get to win. How you deal with loss is a part of your character, in my opinion. You can whine and complain, you can demand that the system change to give you what you want, etc. Or, you can simply roll up your sleeves and work to do better next time.

Or, we can roll up our sleeves and work to create a better system that produces the results that are asked for by the voters, we could work together, or you can whine and complain that there are those who point out that the result was not the will of the voters, or you could work to get more votes and do better next time

I’ll agree that there is some level of character in dealing with a loss. Like, lets say that you win the presidency based on the electoral college, but you lose the popular vote. You could accept that is the case, and move on, knowing that while you have technically become president, you have no mandate, as more people expressed a preference for your opponent than for yourself. Or, you could whine and complain and make up stories of illegal voters.

Let me give an admittedly not exact analogy:

The US is having trouble winning the Ryder Cup at golf, which involves a series of match-play contests. Suppose that an analysis showed that, had the whole thing been played at stroke play instead, the US would have won (the Europeans tend to have a few really bad holes, but that doesn’t matter because losing a hole by one and losing by five is identical in value). Now, the US whines and complains that they really played better golf, and if the whole thing was structured to count strokes, like all other tournaments do, they’d have won. After all, counting strokes is the essence of the game. So they insist that the Ryder Cup be re-structured to stroke play format.

You are correct, that is not only not an exact analogy, it is a absolutely irrelevant analogy, in every way, shape and form.

To start with, this isn’t a game. You are also talking about a series of events, each one at a different point in time, rather than a simultaneous event that takes place in 51 different locations.

If you wanted to make a more apt analogy, then you would say that the different courses are worth differing amounts of point in arbitrary ways, and that some of the courses are designed to be more preferential to one competitor or the other. Meaning that ultimately, it always comes down to the same two or three courses that determine the winner.

That’s in essence the argument behind abolishing/changing the Electoral College. We have a system, a system that very rarely produces a really bad product (the current occupant of the White House possibly excepted). While it is true that on a few occasions the person chosen has not garnered the most total votes from the aggregated elections held on Election Day, in none of those cases was the vote difference so staggeringly large that one can definitively say the will of the people as a whole was thwarted (remember: large numbers of people don’t vote!). But because the same party lost the last two elections where this happened, some members of that ideology want to change the way the game is played, on the assumption that that will mean they will win future contests where the same result would occur. In other words, you want a system that is rigged to allow YOUR team to win, rather than a system you perceive is rigged to allow the OTHER team to win.

Trying to retroactively change the electoral college in order to get a favored result of a past election would be as you describe.

Discussing the benefits of creating a new system that better represents the will of the governed is diametrically opposite to your criticisms.

But the better way to ensure that your team wins is to change how your team plays the game. It’s also the approach taken by people who understand that they cannot always have things their way. IMO.

And a better approach is to make sure that the rules of the game are fair to all participants. For instance, changing the way that the game is played by changing voter ID requirements in targeted ways to decrease the turnout of your opponent would be an approach taken be people who do not understand that they cannot always have things their way.

Advocating for a system that better reflects the preferences of the voter is a good thing. IMO.

[Chronos]

Or to put it another way: Suppose that, some time in the relatively near future, there’s an election where the Democrat loses the popular vote but wins the electoral college. In the wake of such an election, it’s likely that the Republicans would want to get rid of the Electoral College… but Democrats would also still want to get rid of it. And maybe then we would be able to get an amendment through.

[Thing_Fish]

@septimus

The problem many focus on — small states getting a big advantage — is a big problem in theory, but it isn’t the problem that has produced undemocratic results. The D’s have just as many small states as the R’s.

People suggest that land should have a voice, that Montana deserves a voice out of proportion to its population because of its huge geographic size. I might accept that. But why does tiny Rhode Island deserve its extra 2 evs? Is it so culturally different from Mass or Conn? And if cultural difference is the criterion, shouldn’t California be divided into at least two dozen states?
Are you proposing that Montana get one seat in the House and, since California has 68 times the population of Montana it should get 68 seats? The House may already be too big; arithmetic flaws would still arise (unless you went to fractional representatives); and Trump would still have won in 2016. (I’ll have to check for Bush v Gore.)

The real problem that explains why the R's win when the popular vote is close, is that D voters are packed into a few large states and their franchise is wasted.

Here are the 2016 results for the four largest states in 2016, as cast and as might be cast with proportional evs:  (It's a tedious and inconclusive result so I'll hide hide it and discourage clicking.[SPOILER]

Actual California
Clinton 55

Actual Texas
Trump   36
Kasich  1
Paul    1

Actual New York
Clinton 29

Actual Florida
Trump 29

Assuming the Texan defectors would have fallen in line had their votes been needed, Hillary's net advantage over these big states was 17 evs (84-67).
Proportional California
Clinton 34
Trump   18
Johnson 2
Green   1

Proportional Texas
Clinton 17
Trump   20
Johnson 1

Proportional New York
Clinton 17
Trump 11
Johnson 1

Proportional Florida
Clinton 14
Trump   14
Johnson 1

Now Hillary's net advantage would be 19 evs (82-63) despite the drainage to Johnson.[/SPOILER]
Of course it is impossible that any controversial constitutional amendment could be passed today (unless the R's can do it mischievously with cheating).  The NPVIC has been proposed and wouldn't require an amendment.  Unfortunately it would also be vulnerable to R cheating.

Statehood for Puerto Rico, anyone?

I’ll see Puerto Rico and raise you Washington, DC. Maybe Guam, too.

[k9bfriender]

@Thing_Fish

I’ll see Puerto Rico and raise you Washington, DC. Maybe Guam, too.

Can’t have America without American Samoa!

[Thing_Fish]

@Chronos

Or to put it another way: Suppose that, some time in the relatively near future, there’s an election where the Democrat loses the popular vote but wins the electoral college. In the wake of such an election, it’s likely that the Republicans would want to get rid of the Electoral College… but Democrats would also still want to get rid of it. And maybe then we would be able to get an amendment through.

People think that because the system has blown up in the Democrats’ face twice in the last five elections that it somehow intrinsically favors Republicans and that getting rid of it is therefore a partisan issue, but it’s just not. It doesn’t favor one party over the other, it just introduces random noise into the outcome.

In 2004, George W. Bush won the popular vote by a wider margin than Hillary did, but if only 50,000 votes in Ohio had gone the other way, he would have lost the election. Likewise in 2012, the EC favored Obama; of course, he didn’t need it, but if 2% of voters in every State had switched from Obama to Romney, Romney would have won the popular vote while losing the election.

Probably there’s no way of getting rid of this unless/until both parties get screwed within a short period of time. But the NPVIC is a good workaround in my opinion.

[CarnalK]

If you can’t even convince a 2/3rds majority of Dopers to abolish the EC maybe it’s time to rethink your argument. “Because that’s what DEMOCRACY is, dammit!” doesn’t really cut it when virtually no other Western democracy does a popular vote for their leader.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

There are a few different things being confused here:

1. People don’t like losing.
2. People think that the system of government should be better, and believe that establishing a vision for a better system is the first step; figuring out how to reach that better system is the next step, after the better system is imagined.
3. People have a clear path to a better system.
   …
   Of course people don’t have a clear path right now to a better system; we haven’t agreed yet on whether a better system exists yet.
   …
   If all you want to do is to complain that a bunch of posters on a messageboard haven’t solved the political crisis of our times, you win the Golden Deerstalker award.

Which brings us to:

@CarnalK

If you can’t even convince a 2/3rds majority of Dopers to abolish the EC maybe it’s time to rethink your argument. “Because that’s what DEMOCRACY is, dammit!” doesn’t really cut it when virtually no other Western democracy does a popular vote for their leader.

[CarnalK]

I’ve been to this rodeo before. The argument for abolishing the EC and replacing it with popular vote always seems down to “because majority rules”. I am not confusing anything about sore losers or anything else. Are you saying, and expecting people to take seriously, that the EC is the political crisis of our time? Or are you referring to Trump?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@CarnalK

I’ve been to this rodeo before. The argument for abolishing the EC and replacing it with popular vote always seems down to “because majority rules”. I am not confusing anything about sore losers or anything else. Are you saying, and expecting people to take seriously, that the EC is the political crisis of our time? Or are you referring to Trump?

Our nation’s misrule by an entrenched minority is absolutely a political crisis, one of the most important political crises we currently face. The EC is a major component of that crisis. If you don’t take it seriously, that’s spiffy keen, and enjoy.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Oredigger77

The easy fix for the electoral college would be to repeal the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. Let the house actually represent the populous and we don’t need to go back to one rep per 30,000 but the least populous state getting one and then everyone else gets a multiple rounded down. That will help congress work better and will change the votes per state in the electoral college without eliminating a finger on the scale to help low population states.

If I read this right, then by very rough calculations, the House would go from 435 seats to around 550-560. Doable, I guess, though you’d have to renovate the place a bit for the extra seats.

[CarnalK]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Our nation’s misrule by an entrenched minority is absolutely a political crisis, one of the most important political crises we currently face. The EC is a major component of that crisis. If you don’t take it seriously, that’s spiffy keen, and enjoy.

It is not remotely a major component and “entrenched minority” is rather silly hyperbole. The House has a +3% Republican bias, which is the major component and the extent of the “entrenchment”. Working on evening up representation there and fighting gerrymandering is tackling your crisis. Fantasizing about abolishing the EC is not.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

That’s great, and I figure you and I are done here then.

[CarnalK]

Oh you’re sure you don’t want to repost something as if I hadn’t read it already? Ok, our loss.

[septimus]

@CarnalK

It is not remotely a major component and “entrenched minority” is rather silly hyperbole. The House has a +3% Republican bias, which is the major component and the extent of the “entrenchment”. Working on evening up representation there and fighting gerrymandering is tackling your crisis. Fantasizing about abolishing the EC is not.

Yes. American democracy is still, barely, functioning; the EC is the least of its worries.

Get out the vote. Work especially hard in swing states: PA, FL, OH, MI, CO. (Maybe not NC; it’s been taken over by the voting-suppression cheaters.)

BUT the GOP is planning to do major gerrymandering in the implementation of the 2020 Census. Illegals in California will not be counted; those in Texas will. The One Hundred Sixteenth United States Congress is the Congress that will set the rules for the 2020 Census. The coming election is critical.

[EscAlaMike]

@septimus

The coming election is critical.

Yawn. Never heard that before…

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@EscAlaMike

Yawn. Never heard that before…

Well, if it makes any difference, I do hope you take that energy into November and stay home.

[Bill_Door]

A system set up to give more electoral power to states with lower populations is absurd. “Hey, if your state is so shitty that no one wants to live there we’ll give you extra representation.” is not a plan for success.

[Lord_Feldon]

@Bill_Door

A system set up to give more electoral power to states with lower populations is absurd.

And it doesn’t even succeed at that. Lots of small states are what would be called “packed” if we were talking about gerrymandering. That’s a way of suppressing those states! Making the people of Wyoming vote in a partisan ghetto does not enhance Wyoming’s electoral power.

In 2016, Wyoming voted for Donald Trump by a margin of about 118,000 votes. For that, it got to give Trump three electoral votes. Florida had a slightly smaller margin (113,000) and gave 29 votes. How is Wyoming getting a good deal?

[k9bfriender]

@Lord_Feldon

And it doesn’t even succeed at that. Lots of small states are what would be called “packed” if we were talking about gerrymandering. That’s a way of suppressing those states! Making the people of Wyoming vote in a partisan ghetto does not enhance Wyoming’s electoral power.

In 2016, Wyoming voted for Donald Trump by a margin of about 118,000 votes. For that, it got to give Trump three electoral votes. Florida had a slightly smaller margin (113,000) and gave 29 votes. How is Wyoming getting a good deal?

That’s my main complaint about the EC. It doesn’t give any representation to 90% of the states.

It really comes down to just a handful of states that determine the winner, and if you are not in one of those states, then your vote really doesn’t matter.

That the EC has favored republicans, and given them presidential wins against the popular vote is why the republicans are defending the EC so strongly, they think it will work in their future as well. they don’t care that it weakens the vote of the people in their own party as well, they only care that they think that it gives them an electoral advantage.

There was concern that Hillary may end up winning the EC, while losing the popular vote, and that, while still a win, would give her a weak mandate, making it harder to get legislation and policy worked on.

I ask those who are staunch defenders of the EC, had Hillary won the EC while losing the popular, would you be so strongly defending it at this point? I will admit that I would find that situation to be amusing, but I would still be advocating to get rid of it.

I was in junior high when I first found out about the EC, and at that time, it hadn’t given such mixed results in over a century. I thought it was a silly system then, I thought that we ought to fix it then, but thought that at the least the first time that it gave such mixed results again, we would fix it.