Understanding the Electoral College

[LoAmmi]

"Our ideas suck so much, we can't get more than half the nation to vote for them. We prefer a system where we don't have to do that."

 

[Albion]

The Wyoming Rule would only effect the EC in that the number of electors would be increased to match the number of congressional representatives.

Isn't that what we have now under the current system?

 

[FenderTL5]

Isn't that what we have now under the current system?

Yes, but the amount would change, the system does not change. Proportions would.

 

[Steve Petersen]

I don't believe any state has such a regulation, Steve, although there is a proposal that some states have passed which would require the electors to do this AFTER the number of Electoral College votes in the states which have passed the proposal into law equals 270. It is currently about half-way there, as I recall.

See post 11. I uploaded a document that gives information on how each state awards its electors.

 

[Albion]

Either way, candidates are going to go where votes matter.

Not either way. With the current (Electoral College) system, the smaller states are given increased weight since each state gets electors in the number of their Congresspersons plus the number of their Senators. Both Wyoming and California have two and two only of the latter, which makes the smaller states more significant than would be the case under the national popular vote proposal. And one or two of those Electoral College votes can make a big difference when 270 is the goal. Witness the 2000 election, for instance. But when the goal is to get a few more individual votes than your opponent gets out of 125,000,000 or so cast, well, its a different game.

Right now that means ignoring CA and TX and ID, etc.

I don't know about Idaho, but I dont see either party ignoring Texas. Far from it. Or Florida or Ohio or PA.

 

[Albion]

Yes, but the amount would change, the system does not change. Proportions would.

I guess I missed how the "amount" would change if it is still # of Congressmen plus #of Senators.

 

[Albion]

See post 11. I uploaded a document that gives information on how each state awards its electors.

I scanned it. I did not see where any state requires its electors to vote for the winner of the national popular vote as opposed to the winner in that state.

 

[Albion]

That's already happening in the current system. Hillary never came to our state, it was a lost cause from the get go so she didn't bother.

But that is simply what a lazy campaigner did and it cost her the election, or at least having done the same in several such states cost her the election. It was a big miscalculation on her part. But with a national popular vote, she would have really no reason to bother with your state.

 

[durangodawood]

Not either way. With the current (Electoral College) system, the smaller states are given increased weight since each state gets electors in the number of their Congresspersons plus the number of their Senators. Both Wyoming and California have two and two only of the latter, which makes the smaller states more significant than would be the case under the national popular vote proposal. And one or two of those Electoral College votes can make a big difference when 270 is the goal. Witness the 2000 election, for instance. But when the goal is to get a few more individual votes than your opponent gets out of 125,000,000 or so cast, well, its a different game.


I don't know about Idaho, but I dont see either party ignoring Texas. Far from it. Or Florida or Ohio or PA.

Yeah TX is moving back into play.

Of course FL OH PA are in play. Those are the current "battleground" states and we all know they get massive attention at the expense of everywhere else, and especially at the expense of the "safe" states.

If the goal is equalizing campaign attention, then EC is a total disaster. I agree that a national count will also result in unequal attention, just along a different distribution. I dont think engineering equal campaign attention for everybody, as a principle, should count for more than each individual voter expressing their consent to be governed equally.

 

[cow451]

Replace the EC method of tabulating the vote with a direct count method of tabulating the vote.

Either way, your ballot shows the exact same list of candidates for you to vote on.

IOW, a popular vote, period?

 

[FenderTL5]

I guess I missed how the "amount" would change if it is still # of Congressmen plus #of Senators.

The amount changes because the Wyoming Rule (in a nutshell) is that the population of the smallest state in the most recent census (currently Wyoming, thus the name) works as the bench-mark for determining congressional representation and by extension EC electors.

 

[durangodawood]

IOW, a popular vote, period?

Yes, of course.

But lets give up the pretense that we're currently voting on a slate of electors who, in their wisdom, chose a president for us. Thats over and done.

Current EC and proposed popular vote are both equally "democracy." Theyre just a different tabulation method.

If democracy is the problem, then lets go back to choosing a slate of "wise & respected" electors.

 

[CitizenD]

Step 1: Realize that in our entire history, the American people have never elected a single president. Not the first one. Not the last one. Not any of the ones in between.

Step 2: Accept the fact that the president is elected by the State Legislatures. The State Legislatures determine the manner in which their Electors are chosen. Any State Legislature can cancel a presidential election at will. With the exception of voting for a new Legislature there would be nothing anyone could do about it.

Now you understand the Electoral College.

I DO! I DO BELIEVE!

Step 3: Accept the fact that the states, in exercising their rights from step 2, can choose to cast their electors for the winner of the national popular vote.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The EC exists, in part, to avoid smaller states from being under-represented by more powerful larger states.

I personally think that one flaw in our current system is our use of FPtP voting, it is inevitable in FPtP that it will degenerate into a two party system which has been the case since virtually the beginning, e.g. the Jeffersonians and the Federalists. Compare this with an STV system, and the results would be far more representational rather than simply having a winner takes all. This would help dramatically as it came to voting for our representatives.

Couple this with a reform of the Electoral College, perhaps with state electors themselves being elected by the people, the people should know who their electors are and that they are a fair representation of the people.

That all said, perhaps I'm a doofus who doesn't know what he's talking about, these are just thoughts I've had.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[iluvatar5150]

Do away with the Electoral College and the result will be to intensify that situation. There would be almost no reason to campaign in any but the half-dozen largest states.

Is that any worse than the current system of campaigning heavily in a handful of mid-sized battleground states while leaving the largest states virtually untouched? At least in a popular vote system, the candidates have to go where the actual people are, not just the places with the most acreage or the closest 50-50 partisan split.

I have a feeling that if it were Republicans who congregated in cities, they would've been all over this decades ago.

 

[Basil the Great]

Perhaps a hybrid Electoral College Vote-Popular Vote could be created? We could change the system to where the Electoral Vote prevails, unless the Popular Vote margin exceeds a certain amount and then the Popular Vote elects the President. Such a change might be more acceptable to the smaller states?

 

[tulc]

I'm for tweaking the Electoral collage, not eliminating it. I'd think making it more representative would help. Instead of winner take all I'd think proportioning the votes would be a good first step.
tulc(kind of likes that instead of blaming other voters for electing bad Presidents we can blame the college instead)

 

[Basil the Great]

Your proposal would effectively make the winner of the Popular Vote President, except in the very rare possibility of an extremely close election.

 

[Hank77]

I dont think so. With a nationally tabulated vote, every vote everywhere actually matters. Right now if you turn a couple % to the R's in CA, or a couple % to the D's in NC, it counts for nothing.

I don't think we should eliminate the EC but I can see your point because if you vote R in a B state your vote is worthless to the outcome because ALL the EC go to the B candidate.
But in Maine that vote would/could effect the outcome.
Split Electoral Votes in Maine and Nebraska

 

[Hank77]

I'm for tweaking the Electoral collage, not eliminating it. I'd think making it more representative would help. Instead of winner take all I'd think proportioning the votes would be a good first step.
tulc(kind of likes that instead of blaming other voters for electing bad Presidents we can blame the college instead)

lol, I just posted the same before I saw your post. That would be like Maine.