The Electoral College

[jamo]

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

The states via electoral college do overshadows ones vote.  Every state except Maine and Nebraska have a winner takes all.

When I vote republican in NY, my vote is lost in how it's applied nationally because NY being a democrat state gives all the votes to the democrat party candidate, even through 49% of the state could have voted for the republican candidate.  

That's basically what I was saying. I don't think I worded it very well.

[mvmac]

I think a popular vote would definitely help voter turnout as people would actually feel like their vote mattered. Whether that's the best process, I'm not educated enough on this stuff to really know. Things change, originally you had to be a white male landowner in order to vote so hopefully things will evolve into a process that makes more sense. 

One thing I'd like to see with California is split the state in two, northern and southern, probably not possible though unless the state actually splits .

[jkelley9]

Who would start this process? Nobody will. First they'll analyze (to death) if they think they could benefit from it. They will probably be too afraid of instigating the death of their party and will be too afraid to go through with it. They'd rather manipulate the data sets they already have and try to attack that way.

- my ignorant opinion

[Groucho Valentine]

1 minute ago, jkelley9 said:

Who would start this process? Nobody will. First they'll analyze (to death) if they think they could benefit from it. They will probably be too afraid of instigating the death of their party and will be too afraid to go through with it. They'd rather manipulate the data sets they already have and try to attack that way.

- my ignorant opinion

To change it, the states would have to ratify along with 2/3 of the congress. So pretty much an act of God..

[Chilli Dipper]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

But you're not pointing out anything bad… or overly complex. We know the vote totals per state. My proposal (which is just off the cuff - I don't know if I support it, but it seems better than all-for-one that we have now) is no more complex than what we have now.

What you made up off the cuff is a proposal I've seen professional policy wonks make serious arguments for. I don't think it's better; it's just inequitable by an inverse measure of what most states do now.

In the hypothetical "one vote breaks a 50-50 tie" scenario, that method makes the 50-percent-plus-one vote worth three electoral votes everywhere. If that means California's electoral votes get split 53-47%, and Wyoming's get split 100-0%, them's the breaks. It's no more fair than a one-vote victory being worth 100% of a state's electoral votes, whether that means California goes 55-0 or Wyoming goes 3-0; it's just unfair in the opposite way.

 

[JxQx]

As someone who lives in New York state it would be nice to switch away from the current system given it's a complete waste of time to vote for president here. Then only reason I will go vote is because of the other positions up for election on the ballot.

[iacas]

26 minutes ago, jkelley9 said:

Who would start this process? Nobody will. First they'll analyze (to death) if they think they could benefit from it. They will probably be too afraid of instigating the death of their party and will be too afraid to go through with it. They'd rather manipulate the data sets they already have and try to attack that way.

And this is where we lose the idea that our elected officials are supposed to represent our interests.

22 minutes ago, Groucho Valentine said:

To change it, the states would have to ratify along with 2/3 of the congress. So pretty much an act of God..

No, each state controls how its electoral votes are cast.

21 minutes ago, Chilli Dipper said:

In the hypothetical "one vote breaks a 50-50 tie" scenario, that method makes the 50-percent-plus-one vote worth three electoral votes everywhere. If that means California's electoral votes get split 53-47%, and Wyoming's get split 100-0%, them's the breaks. It's no more fair than a one-vote victory being worth 100% of a state's electoral votes, whether that means California goes 55-0 or Wyoming goes 3-0; it's just unfair in the opposite way.

That doesn't make any sense to me. I mean, yeah, it makes "n+1" worth three votes, but that's still better than what we have now where all but two states make n+1 votes worth ALL of their votes.

If California voted n+1 for a Democrat and n for a Republican, the Democrat would get the 2 votes for the Senate, leaving 53. The other 53 would be split 26 to 27. So it'd be 29 to 26 for the Democrat. Currently, of course, it's 55-0… despite winning the state by one vote.

I don't know what you mean by "unfair in the opposite way." I think it's way more fair to split CA 29 to 26 for a close vote than 55-0 for the same vote.

[Golfingdad]

1 hour ago, mvmac said:

I think a popular vote would definitely help voter turnout as people would actually feel like their vote mattered.

What do you think is the percentage of people who don't vote yet who also know what the electoral college is or how it works?  I'm not sure that is a very significant number.

32 minutes ago, iacas said:

I don't know what you mean by "unfair in the opposite way." I think it's way more fair to split CA 29 to 26 for a close vote than 55-0 for the same vote.

I think what he means is that if you take your same hypothetical to Wyoming, then the winning side gets 3 votes to the losers zero even if the winner wins by 1 vote.  Now the votes in the big states would matter more overall and yet the votes in the little states would matter the same, so relatively, they would matter less.  Hence, "unfair in the opposite way."  (That's my interpretation, at least)

[newtogolf]

5 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

What do you think is the percentage of people who don't vote yet who also know what the electoral college is or how it works?  I'm not sure that is a very significant number.

I don't think many understand the inner workings of the electoral college, they just know that if your political affiliation is different from the majority of your state (and you don't live in Maine or Nebraska), your vote doesn't really matter.  

A democrat in Texas might feel discouraged to vote given the states history as being a republican state and knowing that even if 49% of the state vote democrat the republican candidate gets all the electoral college votes.  

Where the votes matter most are purple states (battleground states).  When you look at where both campaigns are focusing most of their time, 11 states votes are all that really matter, the rest are basically determined.  

[Groucho Valentine]

49 minutes ago, iacas said:

And this is where we lose the idea that our elected officials are supposed to represent our interests.

No, each state controls how its electoral votes are cast.

That doesn't make any sense to me. I mean, yeah, it makes "n+1" worth three votes, but that's still better than what we have now where all but two states make n+1 votes worth ALL of their votes.

If California voted n+1 for a Democrat and n for a Republican, the Democrat would get the 2 votes for the Senate, leaving 53. The other 53 would be split 26 to 27. So it'd be 29 to 26 for the Democrat. Currently, of course, it's 55-0… despite winning the state by one vote.

I don't know what you mean by "unfair in the opposite way." I think it's way more fair to split CA 29 to 26 for a close vote than 55-0 for the same vote.

States do not the control the existence of the college. The fed does. You would need an action thats parallel to changing an federal amendment to do away with it. So thats never going to happen. The US has never been a pure democracy. In the framers mind, each state is a nation onto itself. So when Californias voters casts its votes for POTUS, they do so as the delegation on behalf of the state as a whole, not the individual voters in the state. 

[Golfingdad]

16 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

A democrat in Texas might feel discouraged to vote given the states history as being a republican state and knowing that even if 49% of the state vote democrat the republican candidate gets all the electoral college votes.  

This person, though, isn't one of the ones I'm talking about because this person understands the electoral college.  I was thinking that most people that don't vote aren't doing it because of the electoral college.

That's simply a hunch though and not based on any polling or anything.

[rehmwa]

For - I actually like the concept of the EC for exactly the reasons stated.  Each State gets to choose how to leverage their votes by voting all their electoral votes per the majority of their citizens.  This is in keeping with the US being a collection of independent STATES, not a country of individuals (even if that sounds odd, it was the original concept).

 

I have two issues against -

1. I actually do prefer individualism over collectivism, so I'd prefer a nation of individuals, but clearly we are today a collection of demographics in conflict with each other rather than celebrating individuals of all kinds.  So until that culture is fixed, I see no reason for voting to changes.  Seems ironic that people that are so fanatical about popular vote are also those that are just as fanatical about preferences and penalties based on random, cosmetic distinctions.  They are so against a state representing their entire membership, but completely happy with taking entire (races, unions, business memberships, etc etc etc) for granted.
2. I very much would like to see 3rd and 4th parties - (if one is not convinced that BOTH parties are completely broken, then I have nothing to share with those individuals, they are too full of Kool aid).  that would pretty much invalidate the whole idea of 272 EC votes being a magic number.  That would have to change.  (ranked voting, popular vote, something.....)  Though I'd rather see better results from the primary systems, I'm not holding my breath.

[newtogolf]

11 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

This person, though, isn't one of the ones I'm talking about because this person understands the electoral college.  I was thinking that most people that don't vote aren't doing it because of the electoral college.

That's simply a hunch though and not based on any polling or anything.

Nothing scientific but most of the people I know who live in NY and are republicans understand their vote is worthless in a Presidential election here, we vote mostly for local representatives.  I think the all or nothing (except Maine and Nebraska) is understood by most though they may not understand it's conducted through the Electoral college.  

I would think most republicans in CA realize their vote is worthless in a POTUS election but I could be wrong.  

7 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

1. I very much would like to see 3rd and 4th parties - (if one is not convinced that BOTH parties are completely broken, then I have nothing to share with those individuals, they are too full of Kool aid).  that would pretty much invalidate the whole idea of 272 EC votes being a magic number.  That would have to change.  (ranked voting, popular vote, something.....)  Though I'd rather see better results from the primary systems, I'm not holding my breath.

We're many years off from a 3-4 party system because the two main parties seem to only agree on one point, that the addition of a 3rd party would not be in their best interest.  It would take someone that is moderate, with huge public appeal, like Reagan, to attract enough voters from both parties to make a 3rd party viable.  

Gary Johnson is pulling 10% from the Republicans, hardly a threat to either party overall but he will make it near impossible for Trump to win.  

[rehmwa]

15 hours ago, iacas said:

But we have both a House and the Senate.

Yet the way we elect the President is more like the House… except that every representative is from the same party and has to vote the same way.

So why not award the two (Senate) votes to the popular winner, and then divide up the others (the House votes) by the percentage. California might be 2 (Senate) + 60% * 53 = 32. So 34 Democrat, 21 Republican.

I consider this one (and it's been out there for some time) is MOST in keeping with the founder's true intent (balance of power between states and individuals).  I'm surprised this isn't how it was originally structured.

[Groucho Valentine]

9 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Nothing scientific but most of the people I know who live in NY and are republicans understand their vote is worthless in a Presidential election here, we vote mostly for local representatives.  I think the all or nothing (except Maine and Nebraska) is understood by most though they may not understand it's conducted through the Electoral college.  

I would think most republicans in CA realize their vote is worthless in a POTUS election but I could be wrong.  

We're many years off from a 3-4 party system because the two main parties seem to only agree on one point, that the addition of a 3rd party would not be in their best interest.  It would take someone that is moderate, with huge public appeal, like Reagan, to attract enough voters from both parties to make a 3rd party viable.  

Gary Johnson is pulling 10% from the Republicans, hardly a threat to either party overall but he will make it near impossible for Trump to win.  

So must a Democrat in Alabama, Texas, Georgia, etc. The system works for and against both. A third party needs to be a populist movement. It won't ever start with one single politician. Its the american peoples fault there is no third party, not Democrats or Republicans.

Edited October 24, 2016 by Groucho Valentine

[newtogolf]

11 minutes ago, Groucho Valentine said:

So must a Democrat in Alabama, Texas, Georgia, etc. The system works for and against both. A third party needs to be a populist movement. It won't ever start with one single politician. Its the american peoples fault there is no third party, not Democrats or Republicans.

That's my point, individuals votes should always count, no matter what party you support and state you live in.  

I disagree, Gary Johnson wasn't invited to the debates because Trump and Clinton didn't want him there and polling data (15% polling threshold) didn't earn him a spot.  

It's a chicken and egg problem and neither the Democrats or Republicans will make it easy for a 3rd party candidate because their campaign funds are so much better financed.    

[iacas]

33 minutes ago, Groucho Valentine said:

States do not the control the existence of the college. The fed does. 

States can choose how they apportion their electoral votes. That's why you have the two states who don't necessarily do winner-take-all. It's not a federal policy that "winner take all." Look at http://www.nationalpopularvote.com. Or watch the first minute of the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubIeQ-uO_b0.

33 minutes ago, Groucho Valentine said:

You would need an action thats parallel to changing an federal amendment to do away with it. So thats never going to happen.

Pretty sure you're wrong about that. Nobody's suggested doing away with the electoral college.

33 minutes ago, Groucho Valentine said:

In the framers mind, each state is a nation onto itself. So when Californias voters casts its votes for POTUS, they do so as the delegation on behalf of the state as a whole, not the individual voters in the state. 

And they're free, without changing the Constitution or any amendments, to decide to change away from winner-take-all electoral voting.

30 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

This person, though, isn't one of the ones I'm talking about because this person understands the electoral college.  I was thinking that most people that don't vote aren't doing it because of the electoral college.

I think there's a big difference between getting the idea that "my vote doesn't count" and someone "understanding the electoral college."

[Golfingdad]

21 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Nothing scientific but most of the people I know who live in NY and are republicans understand their vote is worthless in a Presidential election here, we vote mostly for local representatives.  I think the all or nothing (except Maine and Nebraska) is understood by most though they may not understand it's conducted through the Electoral college.  

I would think most republicans in CA realize their vote is worthless in a POTUS election but I could be wrong.  

Remember, I'm simply saying that I'm skeptical that voter turnout would rise much if we eliminated the electoral college.  Your answer here doesn't change my view on that because the people you're talking about are turning out to vote anyway.

4 minutes ago, iacas said:

I think there's a big difference between getting the idea that "my vote doesn't count" and someone "understanding the electoral college."

All I am saying is that I don't think that eliminating it would cause voter turnout to increase much.