The Electoral College

[Patch]

IMHO, once the voters pick the candidates for what ever party in the primaries, those winning  candidates start campaigning for electoral votes, and less on the popular vote. This means the states with the most EVs get most of the attention prior to the general election. 

With campaign money being of such importance, there is not much of a reason for a candidate to spend their money on the popular vote, when the EC is an over riding factor on who wins. 

Back when the EC was put into use, it was probably a good thing for that day and age ,  Now days, it's become a political tool allowing candidates to manipulate, or in some cases bypass certain sections of the popular vote. 

[RussUK]

On 10/22/2016 at 3:39 AM, iacas said:

Before we begin, a warning.

Warning: Though we disallowed political threads a few weeks ago, and while this thread is about politics, it's not really super-"political" in the partisan sense. It should not cause conflict. The topic will either be closed and/or people will be given warnings if they make political posts.

---

The electoral college has never made sense to me. Democrats almost always win California, and get 55-0 votes, despite getting only about 60% of the popular vote (and who knows whether that gap would have been narrower had Republicans had a reason to turn out and vote).

It blows my mind that we can have a system that's so lopsided in this sense. Now, I think some states don't cast all of their votes for one person, but most do (I think), and it creates situations where you can win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote, sometimes by big margins.

What are the downsides to Instant Runoff voting? I'm not into politics at all, but in the little I've ever looked into it, it seems like a legitimate way to elect a candidate.

What are your thoughts on how we elect presidents in the United States? How do other countries do it, and what can we learn from them?

Remember the warning, please. This is not about the current race or really even any particular race.

I always liked to think that the voting for elections, referandums etc. in the UK was pretty straight forward. In its basic form, for a general election lets say, we simply go to the polling station (provided the voter is registered) and are given a piece of paper with the names of the Parties or candidates running in the election, put a cross in the box next to the one you want to vote for and pop it in the ballot box.

I think it's the fairest way of doing it. If you get the most votes you win. Yes, there is more that goes on in the back ground but in laymans terms thats it really.

We did have issues with regards to Brexit, with people admitting they voted to leave the EU because, in their own words, "we didnt think it would actually happen". 

In the case of Brexit the system fell down somewhat because the larger percentage  of the leave vote were the "older" generation and many of the "remain" were the younger (think a report said group were the under 25's), student voters and only about 70 or so percent (dont quote me on that may be a little less) actually turned out to vote, again because they didnt think "leave" would win so they didnt bother. We are still moaning about it now (we Brits are good at moaning)

Its a simple voting system but only works when people can be bothered to go and vote, even though you can do it on-line!

Now, if we had the US style voting god know what would happen as i have no idea how you guys cope, it seems so confusing 

Edited October 24, 2016 by RussUK

[newtogolf]

When voting on national issues and for POTUS, why not one person one vote and skip the state involvement so that every individuals vote is on the same level with others regardless of state.  

CA, TX, FL, NY, IL basically control the election, CA and NY are already democrat states, Florida is leaning left.  If Texas ever goes democrat it will be virtually impossible for a Republican candidate to win an election under the current electoral college system.  

[iacas]

8 hours ago, Chilli Dipper said:

A proportional system has its own set of issues. A 60-40 margin in California could be allocated like that, but what about a state like North Dakota, which only has one House seat?

I don't see any problem with that.

8 hours ago, Chilli Dipper said:

A minor party in California could be entitled to an elector with only 2 percent of the popular vote.

Or that.

You keep listing these things as problems or certainties that I don't see as either, @Chilli Dipper…

[toto]

9 hours ago, Chilli Dipper said:

Depends on whether the state is "in play." New Hampshire, for one, receives a very disproportionate amount of campaign resources for a state that has only four electoral votes. As do Iowa and Nevada, for six electoral votes. Trump has made several visits to Maine since clinching the nomination in pursuit of the vote allocated to the more R-friendly congressional district there.

One thing I don't like about the Electoral College is the "winner take all" allocation of votes that most states use, so I'd actually agree with you on that. I like the "two at-large votes, plus one vote for every House district" method used in Maine and Nebraska, but that comes with a big caveat of needing partisan influence removed from the map-drawing process before it should be implemented on a national scale. Also, expanding the House so that no district has a higher population than the smaller entitled district (a.k.a. Wyoming), but that's diving too far into into civics geekdom for this thread.

For the presidency to be viewed as legitimate, elections need to reach a majority result, either directly or indirectly. With that in mind, the national popular vote is the worst way to determine a winner, because a closely-contested race essentially guarantees that no candidate gets a majority. There are alternative ways for a popular vote to reach a majority result, but I think it's more feasible to reform the indirect means to majority we already have.

In Maine, where they award electoral votes by congressional district, the closely divided 2nd congressional district received campaign events in 2008 (whereas Maine's 1st reliably Democratic district was ignored). 

In 2012, the whole state was ignored.

77% of Maine voters support a national popular vote for President

In 2008, the Maine Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill

In Nebraska, which also uses the district method, the 2008 presidential campaigns did not pay the slightest attention to the people of Nebraska's reliably Republican 1st and 3rd congressional districts because it was a foregone conclusion that McCain would win the most popular votes in both of those districts. The issues relevant to voters of the 2nd district (the Omaha area) mattered, while the (very different) issues relevant to the remaining (mostly rural) 2/3rds of the state were irrelevant.

In 2012, the whole state was ignored.

74% of Nebraska voters support a national popular vote for President

 

After Obama won 1 congressional district in Nebraska in 2008, the only state in the past century that has split its electoral votes between presidential candidates from two different parties,  

Nebraska Republicans moved that district to make it more Republican to avoid another GOP loss there, and

the leadership committee of the Nebraska Republican Party promptly adopted a resolution requiring all GOP elected officials to favor overturning their district method for awarding electoral votes or lose the party’s support. 

A GOP push to return Nebraska to a winner-take-all system of awarding its electoral college votes for president only barely failed in March 2015 and April 2016.

 

in Maine, Republican leaders proposed and passed a constitutional amendment that, if passed at referendum, would require a 2/3rds vote in all future redistricting decisions. Then they changed their minds and wanted to pass a majority-only plan to make redistricting in their favor even easier.

 

In elections in which the winner is the candidate receiving the most votes throughout the entire jurisdiction served by that office, historical evidence shows that there is no massive proliferation of third-party candidates and candidates do not win with small percentages. For example, in 905 elections for governor in 60 years, the winning candidate received more than 50% of the vote in over 91% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 45% of the vote in 98% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 40% of the vote in 99% of the elections. No winning candidate received less than 35% of the popular vote.

                                                                       

Since 1824 there have been 16 presidential elections in which a candidate was elected or reelected without gaining a majority of the popular vote.--  including Lincoln (1860), Wilson (1912 and 1916), Truman (1948), Kennedy (1960), Nixon (1968), and Clinton (1992 and 1996).

 

Americans do not view the absence of run-offs in the current system as a major problem. If, at some time in the future, the public demands run-offs, that change can be implemented at that time.

 

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live,  even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate.  Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

[Chilli Dipper]

1 hour ago, RussUK said:

I always liked to think that the voting for elections, referandums etc. in the UK was pretty straight forward. In its basic form, for a general election lets say, we simply go to the polling station (provided the voter is registered) and are given a piece of paper with the names of the Parties or candidates running in the election, put a cross in the box next to the one you want to vote for and pop it in the ballot box.

I think it's the fairest way of doing it. If you get the most votes you win. Yes, there is more that goes on in the back ground but in laymans terms thats it really.

We did have issues with regards to Brexit, with people admitting they voted to leave the EU because, in their own words, "we didnt think it would actually happen". 

In the case of Brexit the system fell down somewhat because the larger percentage  of the leave vote were the "older" generation and many of the "remain" were the younger (think a report said group were the under 25's), student voters and only about 70 or so percent (dont quote me on that may be a little less) actually turned out to vote, again because they didnt think "leave" would win so they didnt bother. We are still moaning about it now (we Brits are good at moaning)

Its a simple voting system but only works when people can be bothered to go and vote, even though you can do it on-line!

Now, if we had the US style voting god know what would happen as i have no idea how you guys cope, it seems so confusing 

Parliamentary systems have fundamental differences to presidential systems. The head of government is not elected directly, and the formation of government requires coalition-building that allows for more diverse political parties while making reaching majorities in individual elections less important. That said, U.K. elections are still first past the post, meaning a party with concentrated regional support like the SNP has more leverage than a party like the Lib Dems that has broad double-digit support, but only has plurality support in a few districts.

47 minutes ago, iacas said:

I don't see any problem with that.

Or that.

You keep listing these things as problems or certainties that I don't see as either, @Chilli Dipper…

Every electoral method has its own deficiencies. People complain about the way elections are conducted in this country, wondering why things couldn't be as simple as this or that; it's because any potential solution isn't so simple.

[iacas]

13 minutes ago, Chilli Dipper said:

Every electoral method has its own deficiencies. People complain about the way elections are conducted in this country, wondering why things couldn't be as simple as this or that; it's because any potential solution isn't so simple.

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.

You said in one post that we wouldn't accept a president who didn't win the majority… yet Bill Clinton failed to achieve the majority twice and nobody questions the legitimacy of his presidency (he only got 43% in 1992!). You claimed that Republicans are salty about Ross Perot… or Gore about Nader… and yet those claims don't hold up to scrutiny. I feel like a lot of what you've written in this thread has been debunked and you just ignore it and try something else.

[jamo]

On ‎10‎/‎22‎/‎2016 at 6:38 PM, 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. 

California's votes wouldn't and shouldn't overshadow anyone's vote. That's the point of one person, one vote. "The states" as is do not have influence, some states just have outsized influence - and in all different ways. Big states like California, if they go solidly one way or another, award huge amounts of electoral votes to one candidate when another candidate won 49% of the vote (or whatever). Small states have more influence than they should by population. Battleground states have outsized influence. Non-battleground states have undersized influence.

Further, population centers should have more influence. The have more people.

[newtogolf]

9 minutes ago, jamo said:

California's votes wouldn't and shouldn't overshadow anyone's vote. That's the point of one person, one vote. "The states" as is do not have influence, some states just have outsized influence - and in all different ways. Big states like California, if they go solidly one way or another, award huge amounts of electoral votes to one candidate when another candidate won 49% of the vote (or whatever). Small states have more influence than they should by population. Battleground states have outsized influence. Non-battleground states have undersized influence.

Further, population centers should have more influence. The have more people.

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.  

[Groucho Valentine]

A couple of states allocate their electoral college votes. Not all of them are winner take all. Its up to the state to decide how the votes are cast. The electoral college (in essence) is a control feature put in by the founding fathers of the US to prevent mob rule. It may not be necessary anymore, but its not a redundant system. California's will still carry more weight than Iowa, Wyoming etc.. None of it gets more Republicans elected as president. Which is what my feeling tells me this thread is really about. Apolitical middle americans that only vote every four years is the voting bloc that more or less that elects presidents. Rutherford Hayes, Benjamin Harrison and GW Bush are the only presidents that have won the white house without winning the popular vote, anyway. The results of both usually lineup with one another. 

Edited October 24, 2016 by Groucho Valentine

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, Groucho Valentine said:

Which is what my feeling tells me this thread is really about.

You're wrong about that.

[Ernest Jones]

Keep an eye on Canada. One of the Liberal's campaign promises was that this past election would be the last election to run under the First Past the Post format. Lots of discussion on what we will move to, but the point is, you CAN change the system. 

[newtogolf]

15 minutes ago, Groucho Valentine said:

A couple of states allocate their electoral college votes. Not all of them are winner take all. Its up to the state to decide how the votes are cast. The electoral college (in essence) is a control feature put in by the founding fathers of the US to prevent mob rule. It may not be necessary anymore, but its not a redundant system. California's will still carry more weight than Iowa, Wyoming etc.. None of it gets more Republicans elected as president. Which is what my feeling tells me this thread is really about. Apolitical middle americans that only vote every four years is the voting bloc that more or less that elects presidents. Rutherford Hayes, Benjamin Harrison and GW Bush are the only presidents that have won the white house without winning the popular vote, anyway. The results of both usually lineup with one another. 

Only Maine and Nebraska are not winner takes all, and are pretty irrelevant in terms of the votes they have anyway.  

It's not about republicans or democrats it's about the process and ensuring that everyone gets to have their vote count, the current system does not support 1 person, 1 vote.  

[Groucho Valentine]

1 minute ago, newtogolf said:

Only Maine and Nebraska are not winner takes all, and are pretty irrelevant in terms of the votes they have anyway.  

It's not about republicans or democrats it's about the process and ensuring that everyone gets to have their vote count, the current system does not support 1 person, 1 vote.  

Was it ever supposed to? Im not sure that it was. The US was founded as a republic. Not so much a true democracy. The existence of the electoral college supports that. 

[newtogolf]

7 minutes ago, Groucho Valentine said:

Was it ever supposed to? Im not sure that it was. The US was founded as a republic. Not so much a true democracy. The existence of the electoral college supports that. 

The problem with the current system is the voting districts take into account overall population, not those eligible to vote, so states that have more illegal aliens and foreign nationals get greater consideration in terms of electoral college votes which further dilutes the concept of 1 person, 1 vote.  

[Groucho Valentine]

1 minute ago, newtogolf said:

The problem with the current system is the voting districts take into account overall population, not those eligible to vote, so states that have more illegal aliens and foreign nationals get greater consideration in terms of electoral college votes which further dilutes the concept of 1 person, 1 vote.  

No, because illegal aliens and foreign nationals cannot register to vote. Legislature in each state controls voting districts using the US census as population data. How they interpret that data is up to them. Its not a federal issue. If anything, such practices could hypothetically help rural areas in the mid west, which have alot of migrant populations from Mexico and Iceland and South Africa. 

[newtogolf]

 

9 minutes ago, Groucho Valentine said:

No, because illegal aliens and foreign nationals cannot register to vote. Legislature in each state controls voting districts using the US census as population data. How they interpret that data is up to them. Its not a federal issue. If anything, such practices could hypothetically help rural areas in the mid west, which have alot of migrant populations from Mexico and Iceland and South Africa. 

If i live in a voting district that has 1M residents eligible to vote and 1M residents not eligible to vote that voting district is allocated electoral votes based on 2M people, which means the 1M voting have a vote that counts 2x more than a voting district that has 1M eligible voters and zero residents that are illegible to vote.  

[Groucho Valentine]

4 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

 

If i live in a voting district that has 1M residents eligible to vote and 1M residents not eligible to vote that voting district is allocated electoral votes based on 2M people, which means the 1M voting have a vote that counts 2x more than a voting district that has 1M eligible voters and zero residents that are illegible to vote.  

Even if that were true (its not in the way I'm assuming you're trying to frame it) It wouldn't effect how electors are allocated. There are not enough ineligible voters in the US to create additional congressional districts. You would be talking about tens of millions. All counted by the US census bureau. Its impossible.