World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[MrPopo]

Isn't the Electoral College vote designed to give each state proportionate voting power versus other states though?

I'm personally in favor of removing as much independence from the states as possible. We did fight a war over it, after all. If the states are just administrative districts like how counties are then it wouldn't matter that a candidate is favored heavily in state A or state B, since it would all roll up. Just like how we count the winner of a state from the overall population; not split out by county or congressional district or anything.

The states are getting individualized says through their congresspeople. If you still think it's important to roll things up to the state level for the presidential election then I could see modifying the proposed amendment to be that all states do a proportional allocation of their electors. You'd have to figure out the rounding rules, of course, and its potentially a harder sell from an amendment standpoint. As it stands today the only thing the Constitution says is that electors are chosen according to the rules of the state legislature and then they cast their votes. So an amendment would have to override that and then impose a scheme where the candidates gained a proportional number of votes divvied up from number of congresspeople. It might even have to remove the electors entirely. So getting rid of the system of electors entirely might be an easier sell than switching to proportional voting.

[Sarge]

The electoral college has done its job of keeping the population centers from completely dominating elections. Any system that replaced it would need to ensure that the tyranny of the majority is kept in check.

I know much has been made of the popular vote, but both candidates would have run a very different campaign if it were based on the popular vote. Trump, for example, would have spent a lot more time in the blue population centers like New York and California, and Sec. Clinton would have spent a lot of time in populous red states like Texas. States like my own wouldn't even register. For this reason, I don't put much stock in the popular vote, because that's not how the rules as currently constituted work, and both campaigns knew that.

[MrPopo]

Replace tyranny of the majority with tyranny of the minority? At some point there's always going to be tyranny in every government system where two people don't agree on everything.

[Tanooki]

Well as it stands now without the EC the major city hubs of the US cause all the largest states outside of Texas, the NE and the whole left coast to go blue. It leaves the rest of the US which tends to go purple to solid red to not get representation at the executive level. It allows a more level amount of voice to be carried, down side is you can have someone lose by a good million the popular and still get the job.

Personally I'd like to see at the least larger states over X EC votes population (if not all) required to split up their EC block into proportional voting. When you look at a big state like CA or NY outside of a few large cities 40%+ of their population get no say in voting which is pure bullshit. But even at the small level, you look at something like Oregon which has just a few, if you could just wipe Portland off the map it would be a red state but one cluster of leftists there silence the rest of the entire space. I know it's just a dream, the democrats will never give up their advantage. If you look at your standard election map of EC members of the 270 they always will pocket NY and the left coast which is nearly 110 of the 270 needed, hell of an edge no? Realistically though you throw in the whole NE excluding PA and toss in IL which is always blue, they're at 200. Mathematically under the current system the edge is clear, far less states needed for one side to win over the other

Proportional would be the way to go. CA would typically end up with their 55 EC votes being split something like 30-25 DEM-GOP, and Texas would in reverse have a similar split as there are good pods of democrats there that get silenced as well.

[Exhuminator]

There are a lot of reasons the Electoral Vote is a good idea. Here are two good ones:

The Electoral College forces candidates to pay attention to all voters. They can’t just focus on a few big cities. They have to win entire states, and lots of ‘em.

The Electoral College protects and empowers minorities. Candidates might ignore a small minority in a national election. But groups concentrated in specific areas can have a significant influence in those states. By forcing candidates to compete for states rather than for individual votes, the Electoral College system gives minorities a stronger voice.

http://www.sciencebuzz.org/topics/elect ... minorities

A popular vote means nothing when the vast majority of votes are concentrated from specific high population density areas. It's not indicative of the country at large, and is disingenuous to a more holistic national outlook. I believe the Twelfth Amendment was put into place to address for example Plato's fourth regime degeneration. For the greater good, an Electoral Vote just makes sense.

THAT SAID

Perhaps reallocating how many points each state is worth is an effort worth considering.

[marurun]

The electoral college wasn't JUST meant to be a mechanical buffer against populism. Faithless electors (those who don't vote with the popular district vote) have always been an expected occurrence. But it so rarely happens (and to boot, over 20 states have instituted laws to punish faithless electors) that it makes me wonder if the EC really serves its purpose. The EC is essentially a way of buffering the popular vote with chosen elites, but it doesn't do that at all.

Sometimes I like the EC, and sometimes I don't. Depends on the time of day. But let me ask another question.

When you see those red and blue maps and most of the country looks red, but then you look at population maps and see that the population of the US is heavily concentrated in those blue spots, is it appropriate to let those loosely populated areas overwhelm the mass populations in cities? I mean, we do vote by head-count, not by square-footage. States already have equal representation in the Senate, and I actually love that. That's a compromise between physical space, population, and administrative districting (as in, the individual states). But I'm also very concerned by issues of gerrymandering. Sometimes I think we really need federally controlled elections, at least for president, or some kind of intervention to attempt to normalize voting procedures. And also guidelines to restrict the power of gerrymandering to minimize minority voices.

A popular vote means nothing when the vast majority of votes are concentrated from specific high population density areas. It's not indicative of the country at large, and is disingenuous to a more holistic national outlook.

Why doesn't it mean anything? If the popular vote is people-based, why does geography mean anything in that paradigm?

Either way, minority rights and minority checks are built into our system of government. At long as we preserve minority rights, we automatically limit the ability of the majority to oppress.

[Exhuminator]

Why doesn't it mean anything? If the popular vote is people-based, why does geography mean anything in that paradigm?

Because condensed urban areas tend to always vote one way. That is in itself a form of gerrymandering, if you are going purely by headcount. To accommodate the broader range of diverse opinions nationwide, you need to count votes on a state by state basis. The Twelfth Amendment is the realization of this, put into place by wise lawmakers.

[Ack]

I think it would be more useful to look at how counties voted to really understand the election:

[prfsnl_gmr]

Perhaps reallocating how many points each state is worth is an effort worth considering.

I agree with you on the electoral college's merits, and I think it is a system worth keeping. It seems unfair to me, however, that people in Vermont and Wyoming have two to three times as much influence on the outcome of a presidential election than people in California and Texas, especially since the states are already disproportionately represented in the Senate. Accordingly, I also think that the number of electors allocated to each state should more closely align with the states' populations.

[CRTGAMER]

When you look at a big state like CA or NY outside of a few large cities 40%+ of their population get no say in voting which is pure bullshit. But even at the small level, you look at something like Oregon which has just a few, if you could just wipe Portland off the map it would be a red state but one cluster of leftists there silence the rest of the entire space.

Proportional would be the way to go. CA would typically end up with their 55 EC votes being split something like 30-25 DEM-GOP, and Texas would in reverse have a similar split as there are good pods of democrats there that get silenced as well.

The level has to be the same across all areas of the country. No vote should have less value, the reason why I detest the Electoral College. My Republican vote even though ALWAYS a loss in Democratic California would still count in the total tally nationwide if the EC is abolished. No more winner take all at the state level, ensuring every vote is fairly counted.

The same would apply for Democratic votes in a Republican majority state, ALL VOTES WILL BE COUNTED!

When you see those red and blue maps and most of the country looks red, but then you look at population maps and see that the population of the US is heavily concentrated in those blue spots, is it appropriate to let those loosely populated areas overwhelm the mass populations in cities? I mean, we do vote by head-count, not by square-footage.

States already have equal representation in the Senate, and I actually love that. That's a compromise between physical space, population, and administrative districting (as in, the individual states). But I'm also very concerned by issues of gerrymandering. Sometimes I think we really need federally controlled elections, at least for president, or some kind of intervention to attempt to normalize voting procedures. And also guidelines to restrict the power of gerrymandering to minimize minority voices.

THIS. Every state has a voice due to representation in the House and Senate. The number of Representatives per state gets district updated based on population. I have to admire Trump, even though he won has stated against the Electoral College.