Why no more talk about reforming the electoral college?

[pervert]

@JasonFin

All these arguments for the electoral collage are based on the idea that sometimes it’s a good idea to enact a policy or put in place a government supported by a minority and opposed by a majority of voters.

No, No. This is not the argument at all. The argument is merely that it is OK for a particular candidate to have less votes than another candidate sometimes. Remember we are only talking about this happening when an election is very very very very very close. In 2000, with a population eligible to vote of about 200 million (in which only half turned out), the election was decided by very close to 500 thousand votes or about .51%. This is almost too close to call. I would suggest, that it is actually too close to call.

States like California or Massachusetts or, for that matter, Texas or Mississippi don’t get that kind of service because they aren’t in play.

But this is a temporaty situation. Last time it was other times it was not. Over many elections, all of these states are most definately in play.

[erislover]

@JasonFin

It may not bother you that someone else has a vote which counts three times as much as yours, merely for living in a different region, but I can say as a Californian that it bothers me a hell of a lot.

I think this is just a poor interpretation of the voting system rather than some kind of inherent flaw in the Electoral College system. In the EC, your vote only has meaning in your own state. Your vote isn’t worth more or less than a Rhode Islander’s because there is no legitimate method of comparison that doesn’t already assume a method of voting that isn’t the EC. You are starting with the assumption that your vote matters in a national sense of “one person one vote”. The EC makes no such assumption. It only cares about states, and apportions state votes based on their representation, which is a floored function of their population.

Your vote compared to the only people you can compare your vote to (those who also live in your state) is worth just as much. The next level of comparison available is at the state level, and as you might note, California is worth more than Rhode Island.

This presupposes that the minority is wiser merely by virtue of its geographical distribution.

Sometimes it is. Not all issues that the federal government deals with are national issues. But while I think this is true, I don’t think it supports the EC.

[erislover]

I also want to add that this “problem” will affect any and all practical representational governments, which will be aligned by region and not strictly population (which would require far too much census work for little gain). For example, the number of representatives in congress is a function of population, but since we can’t have fractional congressmen (and we can’t have zero representation for exceptionally small areas) it is a step function which means some population centers will always have more/less people than other for the same number of representatives.

It is improper, IMO, to view any of these from the “one person one vote” perspective taken all the way through to the highest level of government. Again, with respect to what votes can be compared, it is “one person one vote.”

The only way out is direct democracy. Good luck getting that one through.

[2sense]

My apologies for not replying promptly. The board being periodically offline plus problems with my temporary dial up ISP I’m afraid I haven’t been able to find the right time to post. I’ll do my best to keep up and hope our new DSL modem gets here soon. Since more people have posted since my last visit I guess I won’t get through all of this tonight.

@pervert

Right. But this is patently false. Imagine again, if we held a national election. Then we held a second stage. In this second stage only those who voted for the winner of the first stage could vote. Further, they could only vote for the winner of the first stage. Notice how this is a superflous vote? Notice how simply adding a second stage does not disenfranchise the losers of the first stage?

The objection is not that there is more than one stage in the voting. The objection is that the minority didn’t get to vote in the final stage. I’m not sure why you are having trouble grasping this concept. Lets try putting it in black and white. If everyone got together to vote on how to manage the election and decided to only count the votes of white people then I hope you can see that black folks and other minorities, while casting ballots on the first question, had no say at all in who was actually elected.

*Given that the EC requires winning 50% plus in the most poulous 13 states while a direct election would require much more than 50%. My point is that the EC gives no advantage to a candidate which gains much more than 50%. So, candidates do not radically change thier platforms to gain 80% or 90% in the most popular states. They devise policies which play to the nation as a whole.

• Again you are ignoring the political realities we live with. As we have already gone over each party already has a national base based on national issues. What regional issues could possibly drive a candidate’s numbers up to an unheard of 80% or 90%? Highway funds or desalination plants? Don’t be silly. Long before that level of support was reached a candidate would run into basic differences with the base of the opposing party. And there is simply no chance of a candidate delivering on a promise to spend highway money on only a few states: the plan would be DOA in the Senate.

Also, how about a real world example of an EC-influenced national policy decision? I have offered the steel tariffs as an example of how the EC atomizes policy.

No, I believe it simply acknowledges certain differences which exist.

Here is where we part company. I believe in everyone created equal.

@Trinopus

That means (alas!) that our system is geographically dominated by “media markets.” You can reach a hell of a lot more people, per dollar, in Los Angeles and Chicago than you can in Cheyenne and Metairie.

The EC artificially compensates for that – which, in my opinion, is a good thing.

Can you cite your claim that an advertising dollar goes farther in large urban areas than elsewhere? Because I gotta tell ya, that’s the opposite of how things generally work. Dollars tend to go farther in the country than in the city. Certainly you reach many fewer people with say Channel 7 out of Traverse City than with Chicago’s WGN but it also costs a lot less.

And lets not lose sight of the fact that we are all alone in the voting booth. Individuals cast ballots, not villages or townships or towns or suburbs or cities. People. Some communities are bigger than others but all individuals are all equal politically. Right?

*Question: when the framers came up with it, were they, too, thinking about the power of the press and the function of communication? Were they trying to give a little extra influence to the frontiersman at the expense of the masses in large cities?

• Let me give my usual caveat concerning the original intent behind the Electoral College. Those who have sifted through the evidence of the discussion of electing the president in the constitutional convention do not agree upon any unified intent behind it. There were many reasons to support it, perhaps as many as there were Framers. The PDF that pervert links to does a fair job of laying out the outlines of the debate but really, it was much more complex and messy than that.

• It may seem wrong that some bloke in Wyoming has a vote that counts three times as much as mine…but it makes up for his disadvantages in living so far from the centers of power and influence.*

Do you really think some chap in Wyoming is any farther from power and influence than the DC janitors who clean the capital buildings after the pols and lobbyists go home for the night? Most of us are far from power and influence. That doesn’t give me any reason to be happy with the Wyomingites having five or ten votes to my one.

@Nightime

What are the arguments against having all the states divide their electoral votes proportionally to the popular vote in that state?

To repeat: The EC biases the presidential elections in basically three ways. Between the states the votes are unequal because individuals are voting with varying numbers of people for varying piles of electoral votes. Within each state political power is uneven because only those voting in the majority have any say in who wins due to the fact that all of a state’s electoral votes fall to a single candidate. The wishes of those in the minority have no effect on the vote that counts in the electoral college. Outside the states there is no vote at all. Not even the sham of casting a ballot that won’t count. Those citizens without residency in a state ( or the federal district ) are disenfranchised completely.

Dividing the votes proportionally would only address one of the three main inequities. Voters in some states would still be underrepresented and those who live outside states would still remain completely unrepresented.

@Weird_AL_Einstein

She’ll have to write a bit more than that. Suppose there is a very close election . The losing candidate wants a recount. Does the FEC have the constitutional authority to force every state to do a recount? Even those not participating in this scheme, that had a clear winner?*

You are right that I was oversimplifying things. The reality isn’t very tidy. Each state controls the selection of its own electors so the FEC can’t force states to have a recount. The best I can come up with in the situation you describe would be the runoff election I described to erislover. The FEC, unable to name a single winner, instead declares a tie and encourages the states and territories to hold a runoff election between those 2 candidates on the designated day. The winner of that vote would be named the winner by the FEC. And lets not forget that while federal executive departments can’t interfere in state elections the federal judiciary certainly can.

Also, I wonder how easy it would really be to “encourage” states to go along with this. I am sure a majority of the citizens of, say, Massachussetts favor doing away with the EC in theory. But, in practice, if faced with the prospect that all their electors would go to George W. if he eked out a bare majority nationwide, in spite of the overwhelming majority of Mass. voters voting for the Democratic nominee (as seems likely), I wonder if they would go through with it.

If you wait to decide how to run the election until after the votes are cast then of course any option will be opposed by one side or the other on the basis that it would give their opponents the victory. Obviously the solution is to decide how to assign the electors before the votes are cast and thus avoid the whole silly proposition.

[pervert]

@2sense

I’m not sure why you are having trouble grasping this concept. Lets try putting it in black and white. If everyone got together to vote on how to manage the election and decided to only count the votes of white people then I hope you can see that black folks and other minorities, while casting ballots on the first question, had no say at all in who was actually elected.

Of course. But I am haveing similar trouble understanding your obtuseness on this point. This example is nothing like what happens in the EC. The voters in a state vote. All the votes are counted. Whichever candidate wins (again, after all the votes are counted), gets a certain number of points towards winning the presidency. I cannot see how in any way the losers of this vote were not counted. The addition of a second layer of election mechansim does nothing to change the fact that the losers and the winner’s votes were indeed counted.

Again you are ignoring the political realities we live with. As we have already gone over each party already has a national base based on national issues.

Not at all. I am acknowledging one of the political systems which has given us the political realities we live with.

What regional issues could possibly drive a candidate’s numbers up to an unheard of 80% or 90%?

How about funding all of the state’s budgets of the 15 most populous states from the federal treasury?

Don’t be silly. Long before that level of support was reached a candidate would run into basic differences with the base of the opposing party. And there is simply no chance of a candidate delivering on a promise to spend highway money on only a few states: the plan would be DOA in the Senate.

Which is, of course, one of the purposes of the Senate. I’m glad to see you realize it has a good purpose. You did not seem to think so last time we talked about this. All I’m saying, is that the EC performs a similar (not identical, mind you, but similar) purpose in the matter of choosing the president.

Also, how about a real world example of an EC-influenced national policy decision?

The issue is that the EC prevents extremes of ideology from becoming policy. There is no such thing as a southern party, or a Mid Western party because we have no need of such regional bodies. the federal constitution works quite well at balancing the virtues of a deomcracy with the needs of a great and diverse nation.

Here is where we part company. I believe in everyone created equal.

I don’t thin I said anything contrary to this. I believe I said there were policy preferencial differences amongst the various people of the states which the EC acknowledges, and seeks to ammeliorate.

[HomerIU]

All of this talk about a particular state being “in play” is just that…talk. Sure, if you go back far enough you will see instances where states occasionally switch, but the vast majority of the time a large proportion of the states, in the presidential election, vote either Democrat or Republican in a large majoority of the elections. In fact, I plan on looking this up in the Almanac and seeing what the stats are for the last 50 years. States DO NOT routinely switch from one party to the other from election to election. Further, despite what is being claimed here, a 55% or 60% majority is not a SMALL majority.

[pervert]

@HomerIU

Sure, if you go back far enough you will see instances where states occasionally switch, but the vast majority of the time a large proportion of the states, in the presidential election, vote either Democrat or Republican in a large majoority of the elections.

Well, According to thiscite California voted:

1900: Theodore Roosevelt, Republican
1904: Theodore Roosevelt, Republican
1908: William Taft, Republican
1912: Theodore Roosevelt, Progressive
1916: Woodrow Wilson, Democrat
1920: Calvin Coolidge, Republican
1924: Calvin Coolidge, Republican
1928: Herbert Hoover, Republican
1932: Franklin Roosevelt, Democrat
1936: Franklin Roosevelt, Democrat
1940: Franklin Roosevelt, Democrat
1944: Franklin Roosevelt, Democrat
1948: Harry Truman, Democrat
1952: Dwight Eisenhower, Republican
1956: Dwight Eisenhower, Republican
1960: Richard Nixon, Republican
1964: Lyndon Johnson, Democrat
1968: Richard Nixon, Republican
1972: Richard Nixon, Republican
1976: Gerald Ford, Republican
1980: Ronald Reagan, Republican
1984: Ronald Reagan, Republican
1988: George Bush, Republican
1992: William Clinton, Democrat
1996: William Clinton, Democrat
2000: Albert Gore Jr., Democrat

I make that 15 Republican, 10 Democrat, and 1 Progressive. Even if you grant that the Progressive vote was for Teddy, and so could be considered Republican, it is hardly “occasionally”. I only looked at California, and I only went back to 1900. Didn’t want to be accused of going back too far :).

I chose 1900 because its B I G and R O U N D.

If you read Dilbert, you might get that.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Doesn’t this all just come down to how you feel about the continued existence of states? If you want to view the USA as a monolithic block, then the states become irrelevant and you may as well institute a popular vote. But as long as state structures exist, and the constitution says the state governments can choose their electors any way they want, and the only way to change this is to ge the consent of 34 states, then you’re pretty much stuck in a, dare-I-say-it, solid state.

[2sense]

@pervert

But I am haveing similar trouble understanding your obtuseness on this point. This example is nothing like what happens in the EC. The voters in a state vote. All the votes are counted. Whichever candidate wins (again, after all the votes are counted), gets a certain number of points towards winning the presidency. I cannot see how in any way the losers of this vote were not counted. The addition of a second layer of election mechansim does nothing to change the fact that the losers and the winner’s votes were indeed counted.

I am at a loss as to how to make this point more simple. Yes, everyone had a ballot in the first stage when deciding who would do the voting in the 2nd. But in the 2nd stage, the one that actually decides how to assign the political power of the entire state, only the electors get to vote and they vote along with the majority. In the vote that counts the minority has no voice.

How about funding all of the state’s budgets of the 15 most populous states from the federal treasury?

This is your response to my inquiry for an issue that could bring 80% or 90% support in certain areas. I must say, the politician foolish enough to propose such a plan would be lucky not to get laughed out of town let alone attain a supermajority. You can’t just appeal to naked interest; you also have to give people a reason to believe a policy is fair. I mean, conservative and libertarian types don’t just state outright that poor people should starve so everyone else can enjoy lower taxes. Instead they construct a worldview in which the problems of the poor could easily be solved by themselves and that government aid gets in the way of such rugged individualism. Such pretentions are useful because they allow the selfish hoarders to go on pretending their actions resemble those of decent human beings. Lacking any such sustaining ideology your proposal would fall flat on its face. If you can provide such justification I would take your offering more seriously. As it stands, it is simply ridiculous.

And, as I have said, the suggestion fails because such a policy wouldn’t pass the Senate. This does not indicate any support for the institution of an upper branch of the national legislature. It is merely an observation of how things work.

*The issue is that the EC prevents extremes of ideology from becoming policy. There is no such thing as a southern party, or a Mid Western party because we have no need of such regional bodies. *

Actually the issue is regional dominance of presidential elections. My contention is that the EC facilitates it. You have contested that assertion and the first sentence of this quote isn’t the issue itself but merely a counterassertion you are pursuing rather than getting to the point. The point, let us remember, is that the EC is more susceptible to regional influence because a candidate merely needs a plurality in the 13 “large” states in question to control the outcome of the election instead of almost every vote in them under a direct popular vote. Put in context then we can see that your objection is empty. A candidate willing to propose radically regional policies to the 13 states in order to gain the White House isn’t impeded by the electoral college at all. On the contrary, such a person only needs to get more votes in each state than any other candidate in that election rather than more votes than *any/i] presidential candidate has ever received in that state.

That we don’t have a Southern Party or a Midwestern Party doesn’t demonstrate that the EC promotes national policies over regional policies. A look at the election of 1860 or the history of the Federalist Party shows that US presidential elections can become regional affairs. I have already offered one current example of a regional policy brought about by the nature of the EC: steel tariffs. How about addressing that?

I don’t thin I said anything contrary to this. I believe I said there were policy preferencial differences amongst the various people of the states which the EC acknowledges, and seeks to ammeliorate.

This isn’t how I interpreted your earlier statement but if this were what you said I would have replied that I see no reason to impose your particular view of preferential policies upon the electorate instead of leaving each voter free to decide for themselves which policies they prefer.

@Bryan Ekers

Doesn’t this all just come down to how you feel about the continued existence of states? If you want to view the USA as a monolithic block, then the states become irrelevant and you may as well institute a popular vote. But as long as state structures exist, and the constitution says the state governments can choose their electors any way they want, and the only way to change this is to ge the consent of 34 states, then you’re pretty much stuck in a, dare-I-say-it, solid state.

No. It is perfectly consistant to view the Union as a collection of states and still wish to see each citizen have an equal vote in deciding who will be our leader. You have excluded the middle and possibly a vast one at that. I suspect most Americans fall in that category. And, as I have previously attempted to explain, no constitutional amendment is needed to move the country to a de facto popular vote.

[pervert]

@2sense

I am at a loss as to how to make this point more simple.

You don’t have to make the point more simple, you have to understand where your mistake is. You are claiming that the second election is more important than the first, and that the losers of the general election are not represented. What you are forgetting, is that this “second election” is totally determined by the outcome of the general election. Nothing happens in the second election which is not determined by the first (ignoring statistical anomolies for hyperbole effects). And in this first all votes are counted. Therefore, all votes are counted for the purposes of determining the outcome of the second election.

This is your response to my inquiry for an issue that could bring 80% or 90% support in certain areas.

No. This is my response to your request for an example of a policy which would be in the interests of a limited region. I’m trying to get you to see that regional issues are kept less radical because of a side effect of the EC.

The point, let us remember, is that the EC is more susceptible to regional influence

This is the point you are trying to make, yes. I disagree.

A candidate willing to propose radically regional policies to the 13 states in order to gain the White House isn’t impeded by the electoral college at all.

Not really. Radical policies are more likely to gain vehment opposition in other states. Therefore, you would have to be able to guranantee that such policies would win all of the states you were targeting. If you missed even one of them, you would lose very big. It is much wiser to apeal to national issues in general and regional issues only when they are compatible (or you can convolute them into compatibility) with such national policies.

That is successful candidates apeal as much as possible to as many states as possible.

[QUTOE]I have already offered one current example of a regional policy brought about by the nature of the EC: steel tariffs. How about addressing that?
[/QUOTE]
Fine. The steel tarrif is a regional issue. Are you saying that it is less of a regional issue in a popular election? Are you saying that garnering more support in that region by, say, proposing higher tarrifs would not gain more power in a popular election than the EC?

This isn’t how I interpreted your earlier statement but if this were what you said I would have replied that I see no reason to impose your particular view of preferential policies upon the electorate instead of leaving each voter free to decide for themselves which policies they prefer.

And once agian, you have completely lost me. What I said again and again, is that regional issues exist. They are not created by national politicians. They are not foisted on the region where they exist. They are part of the fact that Americans do not all live in homogeneous, cookie cutter like communities. Certain issues garner more support in some areas than they do in other areas. It is not about anyone imposing a certain view of preferential policies on others. In fact it has nothing to do with that.

[2sense]

@pervert

You don’t have to make the point more simple, you have to understand where your mistake is. You are claiming that the second election is more important than the first, and that the losers of the general election are not represented. What you are forgetting, is that this “second election” is totally determined by the outcome of the general election. Nothing happens in the second election which is not determined by the first (ignoring statistical anomolies for hyperbole effects). And in this first all votes are counted. Therefore, all votes are counted for the purposes of determining the outcome of the second election.

Perhaps it might be time for you to consider the possibility that it could be you that is mistaken. Your quote there is accurate but it misses the point. Rather it obscures the point. Yes, ( 2sense repeated patiently ) everyone has a ballot in the first stage. So yes, nothing happens in the 2nd stage that wasn’t determined by the first. The problem is the method of determination. The method takes a plurality or majority opinion and treats it as universal consent. All of the electoral power of a state is given to a single candidate even though many or even most voters voted for other candidates. Those voters have had their voice stiffled. They have had their share of the state’s electoral power taken from them and assigned to a candidate they oppose. They have been disenfranchised.

Originally posted by 2sense
*This is your response to my inquiry for an issue that could bring 80% or 90% support in certain areas. *

Originally posted by pervert

• No. This is my response to your request for an example of a policy which would be in the interests of a limited region. I’m trying to get you to see that regional issues are kept less radical because of a side effect of the EC.

Excuse me. I must have been confused by the fact that you quoted my question of “What regional issues could possibly drive a candidate’s numbers up to an unheard of 80% or 90%?” and followed it with the direct reply, “How about funding all of the state’s budgets of the 15 most populous states from the federal treasury?” Sorry. My mistake. So, how about actually providing an example of a regional issue that could possibly drive a candidate’s numbers up to 80% or higher? You know, so your position isn’t completely laughable?

This is the point you are trying to make, yes. I disagree.

I know you disagree. You said so and then went into this song and dance about the EC preventing extremes of ideology. I am bringing attention to the original point of contention for context. I don’t want the fact that you are pursuing your counterclaim to the exclusion of the main point to get lost in the confusion. Get on with the disagreeing already.

• Not really. Radical policies are more likely to gain vehment opposition in other states. Therefore, you would have to be able to guranantee that such policies would win all of the states you were targeting. If you missed even one of them, you would lose very big. It is much wiser to apeal to national issues in general and regional issues only when they are compatible (or you can convolute them into compatibility) with such national policies. *

What has this gobbledegook to do with the basic observation that it’s easier to get a plurality in 13 states than a supermajority in them? When you quote someone’s words and reply to them you are supposed to actually reply to them, you know?

• Fine. The steel tarrif is a regional issue. Are you saying that it is less of a regional issue in a popular election? Are you saying that garnering more support in that region by, say, proposing higher tarrifs would not gain more power in a popular election than the EC? *

No one has disputed that this is a regional issue. The steel tariffs were brought up by both myself and JasonFin as an example of how the mechanics of the EC allows candidates to offer policies that favor certain states that the candidate needs to win even though they might have harmful effects for other states which the candidate has no chance of winning. Will you stop dodging the point now?

[pervert]

@2sense

The method takes a plurality or majority opinion and treats it as universal consent.

This is your mis interpretation of the situation. It is not the case, however. The majority (not universal, just majority) vote determines who that particular state gives its approval to for President. No one (except you, perhaps) thinks that the state has universally accepted him. Your problem is that the losers in a particular state cannot band together with the losers in another state to add thier votes together. But this does not mean that the losers in either state were disenfranchised. Merely that their votes were cast within their respective states.

Regarding the regionalization issue: Look. You posited that the EC caused a reginal issue like the steel tariff to become more of an issue than it would have under a popular election system. I asked several questions which are relevant to this point. Do you really think that the issue would be less regional under a different system?

My only point regarding this is that under such a hypothetical system, regional issues could become more emphatically stressed in presidential elections. Given that more votes equals more power in a thouroughly linear fasion under your proposed system, Candidates would have more incentive to get more votes rather than get majority votes in more states. The concepts are similar, but not identical as I’m sure you will agree. Obviously candidates will apeal to any national issues with broad support. However, differences will appear concerning regional issues also. Under both systems.

You are saying the winning majorities in states is easier than winning unanimty. Obviously this is true. My point is that candidates are not driven to these harder methods to win unanimity because they don’t gain any extra power by it. I’m not trying to say that the EC is some panacea which solves all regional disputes. Just that one of its characteristics is that it tends to broaden the apeal of national candidates.

I know you don’t get it. But you don’t get that the losers in a democratic election are not therby disenfranchised either, so what the heck. You have the last word. I’m bored of this.

[2sense]

I am over this thread as well. Not out of boredom but from frustration. If you were willing to examine your preconceptions and discard those found wanting then it would be different. I could point out yet again that you are missing the point or perhaps give you a sarcastic lesson on the meaning of the phrase, “treats it as” but I don’t see the point. It’s no fun arguing at length with those who refuse to engage my position in good faith. But since you have generously offered me the last word I will take it:

Bullocks!

[Bryan_Ekers]

@2sense

It’s no fun arguing at length with those who refuse to engage my position in good faith.

Well, in the next EC thread, we can start all over again.

[erislover]

@2sense

The problem is the method of determination. The method takes a plurality or majority opinion and treats it as universal consent.

Only you are doing that, frankly. Who claims that everyone likes the President, and takes as evidence the fact that he was elected? Even in strict majority voting this claim can’t be made.

All of the electoral power of a state is given to a single candidate even though many or even most voters voted for other candidates. Those voters have had their voice stiffled. They have had their share of the state’s electoral power taken from them and assigned to a candidate they oppose. They have been disenfranchised.

Then all single-seat elections by any voting method other than absolute unanimous consent represent disenfranchisement. That’s ridiculous, and nowhere close to what anyone means by “disenfranchised”.

What has this gobbledegook to do with the basic observation that it’s easier to get a plurality in 13 states than a supermajority in them?

Honestly, the observation is not that “basic” or even unquestionably correct. There are at least two major candidates in any Presidential race. It can’t be easy for both of them in a single seat election. Furthermore, your point of contention seems to hinge on states’ giving all their EC votes to the candidate who won the majority in that state. Surely you realize that this is not required by the EC, and that if all states assigned their EC votes in proportion to the votes by the citizens, your claim starts to fall apart (assuming it was standing in the first place).

No one has disputed that this is a regional issue. The steel tariffs were brought up by both myself and JasonFin as an example of how the mechanics of the EC allows candidates to offer policies that favor certain states that the candidate needs to win even though they might have harmful effects for other states which the candidate has no chance of winning. Will you stop dodging the point now?

Which is only true when the winner of a state takes all the state’s EC votes, something that is decided on a state-by-state basis.

[DSYoungEsq]

The argument by 2sense that the EC should be abolished because it disenfranchises voters is stupid. All you have to do to show how stupid it is is to say, “Let’s abolish the EC. Instead, let us tally the election on the following basis: each candidate will win a number of points equivalent to the number of congressional legislators (Senators and Representatives) a state has for obtaining a plurality of votes in a state.” The complained-of mechanism would be gone, the result would be the same, and the main argument against the EC would still exist: a candidate can win the Presidency without a plurality of votes cast by individuals on that day.

Now, if the electors actually voted according to their own desires, without regard to the popular vote, that would be a potential disenfranchisement of the people, to the extent that they think they are voting for a presidential candidate and not an elector (or slate of electors). Thus, if you held two votes on November 2, one a vote for electors, the second a straw poll of preference for who wins the Presidency, and Candidate A wins a plurality of the votes in California, but the electors split between Candidates B and C (having secretly decided A is out to lunch because he promised everyone a chicken in every pot), then it is true the presidential preference vote would be meaningless. But the parties long ago made certain that such a system wouldn’t exist; in truth, the vote you make on November 2 will be a vote for how the state’s electoral votes should be cast, and no one is under any illusion that they would be cast any other way so long as it matters how they are cast. To complain about the EC on the basis that it has disenfranchised anyone is ridiculous (literally so; it results in many of us ridiculing the notion ).

Of course, the truth is that the people aren’t disenfranchised because they never were enfranchised in the first place. No one has the right to vote for President. It is only by the grace of your individual state that you are allowed to choose the electors to the Electoral College. Statewide votes didn’t become commonplace until the 1820’s. If California wanted to, it could appoint its electors by lottery. Probably get a better result, too.

There is no inherent difference betwen a person in California voting for a losing slate of electors, and a person in California voting for a losing candidate in a national election. In either case, the person’s vote was tallied, but the plurality chose differently. I am certain that those who voted for George W. Bush’s electoral slate in California are perfectly happy with the result of the overall election day, regardless of the fact their slate of electors wasn’t selected to represent the Golden State. But you can point this out to 2sense until you are blue in the face, and it won’t change the opinion of that poster, who has ignored this logic for years, now, in this forum.

As for the underlying issue, whether or not the selection of the President should retain some vestige of federalism, I have opined on this in the past (I’m not sure the 2000 and 2001 threads are still available). I personally don’t like the tendency of this country to de-federalize and become a homogenous nation in which states are mere historical left-overs. I hope that the pendulum will swing back, and we will again invest our states with the power to be different, so that where you choose to live depends on something other than climate. For good or bad, the EC is a part of our federalist roots; I prefer to see it stay that way.

[John_Mace]

@Bryan Ekers

Well, in the next EC thread, we can start all over again.

LoL. I try (not always successfully) to stay out of these EC debates for that exact reason. It’s the old definition of insanity-- doing the exact same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result.

[2sense]

@erislover

Only you are doing that, frankly. Who claims that everyone likes the President, and takes as evidence the fact that he was elected?

I’m not certain what you believe you are replying to but my statement you have quoted is just yet another reframing of the observation that while all of a state’s electoral votes go to one candidate many, perhaps even most, of the individual voters in the state chose someone else. It’s a wonder it needs saying at all let alone restating over and over when no one in this thread has disputed the fact that not everyone has the same vote under the EC. But we are stubborn about abandoning cherished illusions.

Then all single-seat elections by any voting method other than absolute unanimous consent represent disenfranchisement.

Hardly, if we had a single seat election I wouldn’t be complaining because everyone would have an equal vote. That’s not what happens now though I’m not certain where you have fallen off my logic train. You vote for presidential candidate A but amongst the people in your state candidate B is more popular so all of your state’s electoral votes go to him. Your state is a collections of individuals of which you are one which entitles you to a share of its political power. You didn’t vote for B but even your share of the state’s electoral power went to him. This is what I mean by voices being stiffled.

Honestly, the observation is not that “basic” or even unquestionably correct.

Again you attack an imaginary foe. I said “easier”. It is unquestionably correct that it is easier for a candidate to get 42% of the vote in 13 states then to reach 90% or higher. You have jumped into this late and seem to have missed your footing. My quote here is in response to the myth that a popular vote lends itself to regional politics. I have shown to the contrary that this is more of a liablity under the EC.

Surely you realize that this is not required by the EC, and that if all states assigned their EC votes in proportion to the votes by the citizens, your claim starts to fall apart (assuming it was standing in the first place).

The bias of the EC, as I have already explained twice, is threefold. If all states assigned their electoral votes proportionally it would go a long way to relieving the first problem though individual votes would still be bundled together so it wouldn’t be exactly equal. Still, if that were the only difficulty even I would probably have to reluctantly agree that it was close enough. But there is more to it. Electoral votes are not assigned to the states strictly proportionally meaning that voters in different states don’t necessarily have the same or close to the same electoral power. And, of course, those Americans that don’t have residence in a state would still be left out in the cold altogether.

It seems to me that while states could move to a proportional system there is no reason to take half measures when they can, collectively or unilaterally, assign their electors based upon winner of the most votes overall and not just those in each particular state.

@DSYoungEsq

The argument by 2sense that the EC should be abolished because it disenfranchises voters is stupid. All you have to do to show how stupid it is is to say…

All the rest of that paragraph shows about my position is your ignorance of it. It has nothing to do with the EC bias I have described at length. I’m not sure how you came up with this strawman to ridicule but I haven’t complained about the mechanism of the electors. My arguments presume them to be the mere faithful functionaries they should be and nearly always are.

Of course, the truth is that the people aren’t disenfranchised because they never were enfranchised in the first place. No one has the right to vote for President.

Congratulations on winning this cheap semantic point. Care to join the actual debate over whether citizens should have a right to vote for President?

*There is no inherent difference betwen a person in California voting for a losing slate of electors, and a person in California voting for a losing candidate in a national election. *

Wrong. The difference is that in the first case the person was denied the freedom to give their electoral power to the candidate of their choice on their own without bundling their vote with others in their state to elect electors. In the 2nd case the person has that freedom and also the assurance that they have the same vote as everyone else. They would have the right to vote for the President. I’d call that an inherent difference.

I am certain that those who voted for George W. Bush’s electoral slate in California are perfectly happy with the result of the overall election day, regardless of the fact their slate of electors wasn’t selected to represent the Golden State. But you can point this out to 2sense until you are blue in the face, and it won’t change the opinion of that poster, who has ignored this logic for years, now, in this forum.

Why would I need to ignore such “logic”? This amounts to sheer speculation and applies to nothing in contention. Of course those who won were happy to win. That doesn’t mean they are happy with the mechanism deciding the winner.

*As for the underlying issue, whether or not the selection of the President should retain some vestige of federalism, I have opined on this in the past (I’m not sure the 2000 and 2001 threads are still available). *

I don’t recall this. What I remember was you explaning that the EC was a part of our federal republic and not only refusing to justify it but actually getting your panties up in a bunch when I had the temerity to raise the question. I don’t know what they teach in law school but in my neck of the woods the mere existence of a status quo doesn’t justify it.

I personally don’t like the tendency of this country to de-federalize and become a homogenous nation in which states are mere historical left-overs.

To each their own. Me, I don’t much care for it when posters substitute rhetoric for logic.

For good or bad, the EC is a part of our federalist roots; I prefer to see it stay that way.

I love this line. “My EC, right or wrong!” Pardon us if some actually care to explore the rightness and wrongness of the electoral college. If you’ve no interest in addressing anti-EC arguments that exist outside your imagination then please feel free to stop pretending to debate the issue. If you cease spreading ignorance I won’t have trouble myself correcting you.