The Electoral College

[iacas]

3 hours ago, boogielicious said:

Agree, but it follows the original ideas of each state representing itself. CA decides who CA wants for president, senate and congress. They only submit one result representing all CA. I'm not saying I approve of the system, I am only stating the intent behind it.

Well, this isn't against you by any stretch, but I don't really care what the intent was because the intent is > 200 years old at this point, and stuff has changed, as we all know.

3 hours ago, drmevo said:

And another issue with IRV is it means that all vote-counting needs to be centralized, as I understand it. Logistically, that would be a huge challenge for a country the size of the US.

I'm pretty sure my iPhone has enough computing power to handle it. It wouldn't/shouldn't be an issue, really.

[CarlSpackler]

34 minutes ago, iacas said:

Well, this isn't against you by any stretch, but I don't really care what the intent was because the intent is > 200 years old at this point, and stuff has changed, as we all know.

I'm pretty sure my iPhone has enough computing power to handle it. It wouldn't/shouldn't be an issue, really.

Agree, and we have strayed pretty far from the original system of stronger state governments. They control their own fates in congress, so it makes sense to me that popular vote should control the presidency. I would even support that for party nominations. 

[drmevo]

55 minutes ago, iacas said:

I'm pretty sure my iPhone has enough computing power to handle it. It wouldn't/shouldn't be an issue, really.

No doubt any computer in the last 20 years at least has the processing power, it's more the logistics of it. We'd need all new voting machines, or secure online voting (which I might be in favor of). All of the votes would need to get entered into a huge database with much more chance for error on different levels, plus you could have bugs, etc. 

Right now, because our vote-counting is so granular, any technical issues are generally localized to particular precincts. Any glitches in a nationwide count would have much larger implications. 

So, while possible, I still think it would be a pretty big challenge to make sure it goes off without a major hitch. We all know how well the government does with websites and technology 

[iacas]

18 minutes ago, drmevo said:

No doubt any computer in the last 20 years at least has the processing power, it's more the logistics of it. We'd need all new voting machines, or secure online voting (which I might be in favor of). All of the votes would need to get entered into a huge database with much more chance for error on different levels, plus you could have bugs, etc. 

Right now, because our vote-counting is so granular, any technical issues are generally localized to particular precincts. Any glitches in a nationwide count would have much larger implications. 

So, while possible, I still think it would be a pretty big challenge to make sure it goes off without a major hitch. We all know how well the government does with websites and technology 

Okay, then, let's not bother. Let's stick with a process that's designed for a world that's 200 years old.

I know you're not suggesting that, and I'm aware that it's not like we can snap our fingers and do it this year, but for 2020? We absolutely could if it was decided that it was the way to go.

[jamo]

I've never heard an argument against a straight popular vote that has convinced me it isn't the best option. 

[newtogolf]

One person, one vote.  I want my vote to count as much as anyone else and under the electoral college that is not the case.  

[drmevo]

Perhaps a popular vote with online voting? I guess it would tie to your SSN? Can't see any major drawbacks to that. The biggest concerns would be security and fraud/tampering prevention I suppose.

[iacas]

35 minutes ago, drmevo said:

Perhaps a popular vote with online voting? I guess it would tie to your SSN? Can't see any major drawbacks to that. The biggest concerns would be security and fraud/tampering prevention I suppose.

I suppose the "problem" would be voting centers would just be computers (not that they aren't right now) and you'd have some older people and stuff that didn't know how to sign in.

Right now, AFAIK, you don't sign in, you're just authorized to use a computer to submit one vote, and that's it. Since you're only allowed to vote at one station, that's one vote per person. But the votes aren't tagged with your SSN or anything…

Currently.

But that doesn't seem like much of a hurdle. Just do everything the same but unlock the computer by typing in the matching (your) SSN as what they've authorized you to do after you check in. Same computer stuff happens after that.

[saevel25]

Since the electoral college is by number of House of Representatives and Senate members per state. I would make the the number of electoral votes given to the candidate as such. 

Representative electoral votes is proportional to the popular vote won in the state. 

Senate electoral votes is winner take all. 

A few states do it this way. 

[jamo]

23 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Since the electoral college is by number of House of Representatives and Senate members per state. I would make the the number of electoral votes given to the candidate as such. 

Representative electoral votes is proportional to the popular vote won in the state. 

Senate electoral votes is winner take all. 

A few states do it this way. 

Why is that an improvement though?

It seems to me that every different proposal is just "different." They all try to be more equitable to one group and are thus less equitable to another group. I don't see how any of them can be considered more equitable than a popular vote. 

[saevel25]

3 minutes ago, jamo said:

Why is that an improvement though?

It seems to me that every different proposal is just "different." They all try to be more equitable to one group and are thus less equitable to another group. I don't see how any of them can be considered more equitable than a popular vote. 

Its the philosophical idea that this country was founded on the compromise that representation is by states and populous.

The argument against a popular vote is based on state sovierenty. Why should California's 60% democratic vote overshadow many smaller Republican votes? Why should the coasts have such more sway because their states have more population density. 

This would be different if this country wasn't one made up of fifty governments. It is, in that regard I think it's good to keep the compromise of states having some influence. 

[DrvFrShow]

We still have a situation today with a relatively uneducated public. Next time you're at the supermarket, ask someone to name the Secretary of State (BTW it's John Kerry). Ask someone to name their State Senator or State Representative or the two houses in the legislative branch of their state. How about name the governor? Or Mayor? Ask them what Damascus is (it's the capitol of Syria). Ask them what Kabul is. How about Yemen. Ask them what Mosul is. Then ask them what Utah is. You get my point.

Getting rid of the Electoral College would require amending the constitution. This requires that this Amendment pass the House of Representatives AND the Senate with a 2/3 majority, then be ratified by 3/4 of the states. Normally it takes about 10 years when you can get anything through Congress. Try to get that to happen given current divisions in our country. We have this discussion every four years. We've had it since 1968. I think we'd have better luck at the state level trying to get proportional divisions. 

How the electoral votes are divided depends upon the constitution of your state. Your state can amend its constitution to divide up its electoral votes proportionally or keep it winner take all, but any change will require a state constitutional amendment. 

Changes as such might make third parties more viable. Major parties are loathe to do this because a viable third party candidate might garner enough votes to trigger various mechanisms outlined in the Constitution.

1) If there is a 269-269 tie, the House chooses the President and the Senate chooses the Vice President.

2) If no one wins enough (say if that third party candidate who is leading in Utah won the state), the House will choose the President from the three candidates who won the most electoral votes, and the Senate would choose the Vice President from the three VP candidates.

There have been ties three times in our history. Proportional division would likely lead to scenario 2 taking place quite often.

[CarlSpackler]

1 hour ago, DrvFrShow said:

We still have a situation today with a relatively uneducated public.

Isn't that the truth. I cringe at the man on the street interviews where they ask basic questions like, "Who won the civil war?" and people don't even know who was in it. 

[RandallT]

Good job to everyone on not dragging actual politics into this thread.

Spoiler

@Lihu- I saw you cleverly hid some politics in a spoiler area. Nobody took the bait to argue what you wrote there, so maybe we won't assign warning points this time!

I don't think it's been mentioned here, but there's an interesting idea called National Popular Vote- where a state can amend its rules (I assume by state constitution) such that it will award all of its electors to the winner of the national popular vote--- but only if enough other states do the same. Kind of like a trigger for it to take effect.

http://www.fairvote.org/national_popular_vote#what_is_the_national_popular_vote_plan

Quote

What is the National Popular Vote Plan?

The National Popular Vote (NPV) plan guarantees election of the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The NPV plan is a state statute in the form of an interstate compact. It creates an agreement among states to award all of their electoral votes collectively to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote. This agreement takes effect only once the participating states together hold a majority of electoral votes (270 of 538)--guaranteeing that the winner of the national popular vote will win an Electoral College majority.

Passing NPV will guarantee election of the national popular vote winner once the compact has been joined by enough states to make it decisive for determining the outcome of future elections. Until that point, a state’s current rules apply.

State legislators have introduced NPV legislation in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. NPV legislation has now been enacted by 11 jurisdictions possessing 165 electoral votes, or 61% of the 270 electoral votes needed to activate the compact. 

This is essentially a back door to getting the same result as a popular vote, and is the most likely way to achieve that end.

Here's an argument against it:

 

 

[toto]

Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group

Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.               

Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states.  80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party  in the states, and  ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. 

In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).

In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined. 

The 12 smallest states are totally ignored in presidential elections.  These states are not ignored because they are small, but because they are not closely divided “battleground” states.                                                       

Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections.

Similarly, the 25 smallest states have been almost equally noncompetitive. They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012.

Voters in states, of all sizes, that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

Edited October 23, 2016 by toto
spacing

[toto]

3 hours ago, RandallT said:

Good job to everyone on not dragging actual politics into this thread.

  Reveal hidden contents

@Lihu- I saw you cleverly hid some politics in a spoiler area. Nobody took the bait to argue what you wrote there, so maybe we won't assign warning points this time!

I don't think it's been mentioned here, but there's an interesting idea called National Popular Vote- where a state can amend its rules (I assume by state constitution) such that it will award all of its electors to the winner of the national popular vote--- but only if enough other states do the same. Kind of like a trigger for it to take effect.

http://www.fairvote.org/national_popular_vote#what_is_the_national_popular_vote_plan

The National Popular Vote bill would replace state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states

The National Popular Vote bill would replace state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states

[toto]

13 hours ago, jamo said:

Why is that an improvement though?

It seems to me that every different proposal is just "different." They all try to be more equitable to one group and are thus less equitable to another group. I don't see how any of them can be considered more equitable than a popular vote. 

No state uses a proportional system.

An analysis of the whole number proportional plan and congressional district systems of awarding electoral votes, evaluated the systems "on the basis of whether they promote majority rule, make elections more nationally competitive, reduce incentives for partisan machinations, and make all votes count equally.  . . .

 

Awarding electoral votes by a proportional or congressional district [used by Maine and Nebraska] method fails to promote majority rule, greater competitiveness or voter equality. Pursued at a state level, both reforms dramatically increase incentives for partisan machinations. If done nationally, a congressional district system has a sharp partisan tilt toward the Republican Party, while the whole number proportional system sharply increases the odds of no candidate getting the majority of electoral votes needed, leading to the selection of the president by the U.S. House of Representatives.

 

For states seeking to exercise their responsibility under the U.S. Constitution to choose a method of allocating electoral votes that best serves their state’s interest and that of the national interest, both alternatives fall far short of the National Popular Vote plan . . ."

 

 

http://www.fairvote.org/fuzzy-math-wrong-way-reforms-for-allocating-electoral-college-votes

 

 

13 hours ago, saevel25 said:

Its the philosophical idea that this country was founded on the compromise that representation is by states and populous.

The argument against a popular vote is based on state sovierenty. Why should California's 60% democratic vote overshadow many smaller Republican votes? Why should the coasts have such more sway because their states have more population density. 

This would be different if this country wasn't one made up of fifty governments. It is, in that regard I think it's good to keep the compromise of states having some influence. 

The National Popular Vote bill retains the Electoral College and state control of elections.  It again changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. 

Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter  in the state counts and national count. The bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes.

 

States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.

        

Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ."   The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive.                                                                                                                                                                        

Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government.  The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government.  The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).

[iacas]

11 hours ago, RandallT said:

That video makes me laugh.

I mean, she's gotta read the script, but the folks who wrote the script don't have much of an argument IMO.

"Can you imagine all of CA's electoral votes going to elect…" the guy who was elected anyway? OH MY!