Dems want a ‘democracy’ where the majority lords it over everyone else.

[Arcangl86]

Because the swing states consist of both urban, suburban, and rural populations.

That's literally all states.

 

[Adam56]

That's literally all states.

I think you missed the point.

 

[rturner76]

IMO, it is certainly more advantageous for the majority to rule the minority instead of the minority ruling the majority.

 

[SimplyMe]

Our country was built on that in order to combat the tyranny of the majority.

No, it really wasn't. The Electoral College was largely designed because of slavery -- because the authors of the Constitution needed a way to count all the slaves "votes" without them actually being able to vote (the 3/5ths rule). The idea of selling it as a way of amplifying the power of smaller states wasn't actually "invented" until they were trying to get states like Maryland and Delaware to vote to ratify the Constitution.

It is also worth noting that the Senate was the actual method the Founders came up with for preventing the tyranny of the majority -- providing a body where all states have an equal voice, regardless of how many people live in a state.

 

[Arcangl86]

I think you missed the point.

You were asked why the current situation was better than a national vote and you responded by plugging a quality that all states have. So please, explain your point.

 

[Adam56]

No, it really wasn't. The Electoral College was largely designed because of slavery -- because the authors of the Constitution needed a way to count all the slaves "votes" without them actually being able to vote (the 3/5ths rule). The idea of selling it as a way of amplifying the power of smaller states wasn't actually "invented" until they were trying to get states like Maryland and Delaware to vote to ratify the Constitution.

It is also worth noting that the Senate was the actual method the Founders came up with for preventing the tyranny of the majority -- providing a body where all states have an equal voice, regardless of how many people live in a state.

So to cut to this chase, are you disagreeing with the electoral college?

 

[Adam56]

You were asked why the current situation was better than a national vote and you responded by plugging a quality that all states have. So please, explain your point.

Without an electoral college the presidents will only focus on the needs of cities.

 

[Arcangl86]

Without an electoral college the presidents will only focus on the needs of cities.

Which is where most of the people are.

 

[JSRG]

One important thing needs to be noted: For as much talk as people make of how a candidate won the electoral college but lost the popular vote, we actually do not know what the popular vote would have been had that been the decider of the election. All candidates (and voters) know about the electoral college, so their campaigns and votes work accordingly. Voting patterns would have been different had a popular vote decided the election, so the fact someone lost a popular vote under one system does not mean they would lose it under a system that actually had the popular vote matter.

I did not do an in-depth examination of it, only comparing a few states, but in the ones I looked at I noticed that turnout was higher in swing states and lower in states where the winner was certain, and swing states also had fewer people vote third party/independent. Voting patterns could be very different under a popular vote, so the vote count we saw in those elections has no guarantee to be the vote count under a popular vote. In order words, saying "this candidate would have won under a popular vote" is speculation because the voting patterns and campaign strategies would have been different.

With all that said...

Why the Electoral College is vital, not outdated - Washington Examiner

Abolishing the Electoral College was once an outrageous suggestion. But with 15 states and counting supporting an interstate agreement to grant their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote for president, the idea is gaining traction nationwide. Critics call the Electoral College...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

So this article tries to argue for the electoral college. However, it makes an irritating error. It claims "Well, the reasoning behind the creation of the Electoral College is more relevant than ever" and then prior to giving the reasons to keep it, it claims "To understand why this process remains important today, we have to recognize why the framers chose it in the first place." However, there is little to no evidence the things it cites were in their mind at all, at least in regards to choosing it over a popular election. The recorded mentions I have found as to why they had the electoral college instead of a popular vote are James Madison's notes at the Constitutional Convention saying the slaveholding states object to being disadvantaged (as a lot of their population couldn't vote) and the Federalist Papers basically saying it seemed the electoral college would make the presidential election "be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation" These are the main statements I've seen cited concerning the reasoning for the electoral college over a popular vote. I have not seen anyone cite any statement by someone involved with the Constitution that the electoral college was made to benefit small states.

Neither of these two reasons would be advanced today in a debate on the electoral college. The first would be seen as downright odious, and at any rate irrelevant due to there not being slavery. And if the second was ever true, it's certainly not true now, as electors are chosen specifically from people who are most likely to dutifully vote for a particular candidate and not analyze or deliberate their choices.

In truth, the electoral college has never managed to accomplish its goals (aside from giving slaveholding states more of a say in the presidential election, I suppose). In fact, the original iteration failed so badly at even functioning that after two elections under it (technically four but the first two had Washington essentially unopposed so they can't be considered a real usage of the electoral college), they had to change the way it worked via the 12th Amendment to prevent bizarre outcomes like the President and Vice President being of opposite parties, as happened in one of those elections.

So the reasoning behind the creation of the electoral college, contrary to the article's assertion, is completely irrelevant. The reasons it offers are not the original ones. Still, that doesn't mean the new reasons can't be valid; there could be reasons they didn't foresee, but are still reasons to keep it around. So how do they hold up?

The first reason it gives seems so irrelevant I can't comment much on it because I don't even understand its argument. That said, the second and third reasons are a bit more valid, though I think it could have phrased them a bit better.

The second one claims "Without the Electoral College, candidates today would focus almost exclusively on New York, California, and Texas, ignoring Vermont, North Dakota, Wyoming, and all the other small states, possibly threatening the cohesion that maintains the United States." Tell me: How much attention does Vermon, North Dakota, Wyoming, and all the other small states get under the electoral college? None! Every small state is solid Democrat or solid Republican, so presidential candidates pay no attention to them. In a popular vote, those small states would still not be particularly important, but there would be infinitely more votes up for grabs in them than under the electoral college (there are presently zero votes up for grabs in the small states, so even one vote being up for grabs is infinitely more).

The third one is the most legitimate, pointing out "An important advantage of the Electoral College is that it keeps election fraud and errors contained within individual states." Think of the chaos in the 2000 election about Florida, then realize a close national race would have that happen in every state. And while the claims of election fraud changing the result of the 2020 election were silly, the fact there were only a few states where this could have happened to a point of tipping the election made it a lot easier to demonstrate how it was silly. It is true that there are plenty of countries that have a popular vote for President, but every single one of them has fewer people than the United States (the only democratic country with more people, India, does not have a popular vote) and in a lot of those countries the President doesn't have much in the way of power so the election isn't terribly important anyway. Though Indonesia (the largest country after the US) does have a popularly elected President who seems to have real power from what I can tell, so maybe it works for them? I don't know enough about Indonesia to assess how well it works in practice.

So the article really only gets one argument that seems to have validity.

There is an argument for the electoral college, though, that the article doesn't mention (though maybe it was trying to get at it with its second reason). The electoral college means the election is essentially decided by a group of moderate swing voters. So a candidate has to try to appeal to group and is prevented from going too far to the right or left. But in a popular vote, there is potential strong advantage to going extreme, as this article argues, because a plausible path to victory is to, instead of appealing to the moderates, just riling up the extremists to vote for you, increasing the already problematic polarization.

But honestly, for as much as some people complain about it, I don't see it going anywhere. It's too hard to pass an amendment to change it. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has less stringent requirements, but because it's largely a Democrat-backed idea (as the electoral college is presently seen as favoring Republicans), you're going to have a lot of trouble getting the required number of states to do it, and I wonder exactly how long it would last; if you get enough states to do it, then the people who live in a state that voted for one candidate but the electors went to the other are likely to be annoyed and want it undone. Personally, I think the larger problem is that the President is too powerful; if they had less power (weakening the veto power would do a lot to accopmlish this), then the method of electing them would be less important.

 

[RoBo1988]

I think democracy is designed for the majority to set the nation's political agenda while also respecting the rules of the Constitution so that if either side is in power, there are universal rights that cannot be voted away by the majority.

There's the deal breaker - "while also respecting the rules of the Constitution" Those who want majority rule have no respect for the constitution, or you.

"Two wolves and a lamb deciding on dinner "

 

[SimplyMe]

So to cut to this chase, are you disagreeing with the electoral college?

I don't see where it improves the country. I'll explain more below.

Without an electoral college the presidents will only focus on the needs of cities.

"Cities" is the wrong word here. To be honest, most cities aren't really that large. To give an example, the 4th largest US city is Houston, which has only 2.3 million people. The 10th largest city is under 1 million. Cities don't have the power you are thinking they do.

What you are actually stating is that Presidents will only focus on the needs of metropolitan areas, which I find questionable but it at least is more plausible. The issue is that most of the people in most "cities" (metro areas) live in suburbs. To go back to Houston, only 2.3 million live in the city limits while there are 7.5 million in the metro area -- over double live in "suburbs" than in the city itself. And, if you aren't aware, suburban voters tend to be far different, and vote much differently (if nothing else, Republican vs. Democrat), than the people who live in the cities.

Beyond that, if you are talking about people living in rural areas, the Electoral College doesn't help them. Currently less than 20% of all Americans live in rural areas, everyone else (the 80%) lives in "cities." You could just as easily argue that the Western States would be ignored (other than possibly California and Texas) since there are so few votes in the West -- removing California and Texas there are just over 100 Electoral Votes in the states west of the Mississippi, while nearly 350 in the Eastern states. A Presidential Candidate can win the election by getting roughly 3/4 of the Eastern states to vote for him.

Last, the President can't make laws so what the President focuses on isn't meant to be that important. Again, the Senate is where the smaller states have power and can drive the agenda, regardless of the President. Additionally, since much of what the president does (such as approval of his administration's and judicial appointments) must be approved through the Senate, it gives them power to push their agenda. And this all ignores the claims of some that it is actually the rich (through the unlimited political donations they can make to get their favored candidates elected) have more power than either people in the city or on farms.

Ultimately, I think the US should go back to the idea of "one man, one vote," something we were allegedly founded on, for Presidential elections. Yes, politicians will not just be able to focus on swing states; though ultimately they are going to focus on where the undecided voters are (wherever they may be) as that is where they can gain, or lose, the most votes.

I'd suggest the biggest issue has nothing to do with the Electoral College but, rather, our dependence on the two party system. Having multiple parties would be the best way to ensure everyone can be properly represented. For example, say there was a "rural party", where that party would get the 20% of the votes from people who live in rural areas. Then, if you have Republicans with 40% and Democrats with 40%, one of the parties could work with the rural party to provide a ruling coalition -- giving rural areas real power. Unfortunately, this will never happen with the Electoral College in place, where third party candidates don't ever get enough votes to win Electoral College votes.

 

[SimplyMe]

There's the deal breaker - "while also respecting the rules of the Constitution" Those who want majority rule have no respect for the constitution, or you.

"Two wolves and a lamb deciding on dinner "

I think you are confused, the Constitution is all about "majority rules." The Founders really didn't see the Electoral College as protection for the minority, it was a compromise to give Southern States more power in Presidential Elections (based on the 3/5ths rule).

The primary way the Founders envisioned to protect the minority is the Senate -- which was designed to give every state had equal power before any law could be passed. Unlike the House, where the big states would wield extra power, the Senate was a check on that to protect "the minority."

 

[JSRG]

Ultimately, I think the US should go back to the idea of "one man, one vote," something we were allegedly founded on, for Presidential elections. Yes, politicians will not just be able to focus on swing states; though ultimately they are going to focus on where the undecided voters are (wherever they may be) as that is where they can gain, or lose, the most votes.

I am not so sure that is how it will actually turn out. In my previous post, I noted this argument (admittedly, from back in 2012) that a popular vote would make presidential candidates care a lot less about undecided voters and a lot more about mobilizing the base. As it notes, "On a per-voter basis, it is cheaper in terms of both time and effort to win over those already inclined to support you than it is to convert moderates." In other words, it's not so much about focusing on undecided voters, but focusing on people who would (if they had to go vote) vote for you, and the only thing you have to do is get them to go out and vote for you. This could easily make things more polarized because now you have more incentive to go extreme.

Or maybe that article's argument is totally wrong! I don't know. But it seems to raise valid concerns.

I'd suggest the biggest issue has nothing to do with the Electoral College but, rather, our dependence on the two party system. Having multiple parties would be the best way to ensure everyone can be properly represented. For example, say there was a "rural party", where that party would get the 20% of the votes from people who live in rural areas. Then, if you have Republicans with 40% and Democrats with 40%, one of the parties could work with the rural party to provide a ruling coalition -- giving rural areas real power. Unfortunately, this will never happen with the Electoral College in place, where third party candidates don't ever get enough votes to win Electoral College votes.

I don't think this is the case. The problem for third party candidates isn't the electoral college; it's the way elections are done. If we swapped to a proportional representation system (probably the system that would most likely guarantee a bunch of political parties) for the House and presidential electors, I think we'd see a greater diversity of parties and there being more people getting electors... though we might start to see it being a rarity for any presidential candidate to get a majority of electors, which would send it to the House of Representatives to choose from the top 3. And since in this system they'd presumably be split among a bunch of different parties with none having a majority in and of themselves, it would probably result in a bunch of "backroom dealing" to decide President. Then again, forcing them to actually work with each other to choose a President might not be all that bad, and could actually fit better with how it was originally envisioned to work.

So I don't really think we can say that this would never happen with the electoral college in place, because I don't think the electoral college has anything to do with the two party system. It's a problem, but it comes from different factors.

 

[SimplyMe]

I am not so sure that is how it will actually turn out. In my previous post, I noted this argument (admittedly, from back in 2012) that a popular vote would make presidential candidates care a lot less about undecided voters and a lot more about mobilizing the base. As it notes, "On a per-voter basis, it is cheaper in terms of both time and effort to win over those already inclined to support you than it is to convert moderates." In other words, it's not so much about focusing on undecided voters, but focusing on people who would (if they had to go vote) vote for you, and the only thing you have to do is get them to go out and vote for you. This could easily make things more polarized because now you have more incentive to go extreme.

Or maybe that article's argument is totally wrong! I don't know. But it seems to raise valid concerns.

Except the major focus for both parties has already been to get out the vote, that is unlikely to change, with or without the Electoral College. In fact, when I was in college in 1976, I was one of the ones calling to get people out to vote on behalf of candidate -- so it isn't even anything new.

The fact remains, most Presidential elections (in terms of the popular vote) are usually within a few percent, and often close to about 1% different. That is the reason Presidential Candidates go after swing states so hard now, since they will end up deciding who becomes the president. And it will be the same without an Electoral College, they need to go to where the undecideds are (whatever area that might be) to get that last couple of percent of voters to vote for them.

On an unrelated note, I was technically working for a Senate candidate, who was going against the incumbent. One of his primary ideas was that the incumbent had served four terms and "four terms is enough." The candidate won and, after serving more than four terms in the Senate, I began to feel that someone should have run against him and reminded people about how he had claimed "four terms is enough."

I don't think this is the case. The problem for third party candidates isn't the electoral college; it's the way elections are done. If we swapped to a proportional representation system (probably the system that would most likely guarantee a bunch of political parties) for the House and presidential electors, I think we'd see a greater diversity of parties and there being more people getting electors... though we might start to see it being a rarity for any presidential candidate to get a majority of electors, which would send it to the House of Representatives to choose from the top 3. And since in this system they'd presumably be split among a bunch of different parties with none having a majority in and of themselves, it would probably result in a bunch of "backroom dealing" to decide President. Then again, forcing them to actually work with each other to choose a President might not be all that bad, and could actually fit better with how it was originally envisioned to work.

So I don't really think we can say that this would never happen with the electoral college in place, because I don't think the electoral college has anything to do with the two party system. It's a problem, but it comes from different factors.

I largely agree, just that I see the Electoral College as one more "road block." The fact remains, people tend to think that voting for a third party candidate is "wasting their vote," in large part because of the Electoral College (where if you don't vote for the winner in your state, your vote has no power), regardless of who wins the Presidency.

 

[Pommer]

They focus on every state.

This explains all of the Presidential junkets to Wyoming.

 

[Pommer]

A perfect example of the Conservative ideal that the 1% should rule the other 99%. "We The People" means the masses because they are "the people." What you seem to be supporting here is right in line with the feudal system. In that system, the people with the most money pay the least amount in taxes and control the destiny of the other 99% of the PEOPLE.

Conservatives still espouse the Rule-of-Law, only it’s turned out to mean they want to Rule and the rest of us have to follow the Law.

Who should we make the hereditary King of the United States? I believe Donald Trump has enough heirs to build a stable monarchy.

Why does Dune pop to mind?

 

[JSRG]

I largely agree, just that I see the Electoral College as one more "road block." The fact remains, people tend to think that voting for a third party candidate is "wasting their vote," in large part because of the Electoral College (where if you don't vote for the winner in your state, your vote has no power), regardless of who wins the Presidency.

But that's not any different from any other election. What you described applies just as much to the governor, Senator, or (if your state has elections for them) State Supreme Court Justice elections: "If you don't vote for the winner in your state, your vote has no power". Swap out "state" for "district" and you described the House of Representatives and all of the state legislatures. There's nothing different about the electoral college here.

 

[RoBo1988]

Unlike the House, where the big states would wield extra power, the Senate was a check on that to protect "the minority."

I see you said that in past tense.

So glad we have heroes like Bob Menendez looking out for the little guy /s

 

[KCfromNC]

Without an electoral college the presidents will only focus on the needs of cities.

Oh no, nationwide candidates dedicating time to things that the majority of voters value. How would the Union ever survive?

 

[NxNW]

Oh no, nationwide candidates dedicating time to things that the majority of voters value. How would the Union ever survive?

Snuffy Smith has needs, too!