The official "Electoral College is outdated" thread

[jamil]

There seems to be a discussion about the EC in more than one thread, so, given the renewed sentiments in the nation about getting rid of it, I thought I'd start this thread.


I used to be one of you guys who believe in the EC, almost as some kind of providential patriotic genius. It's really not. It was just a compromise solution for a dilemma, which was appealing to the concerns of the US at the time. I think at a phase in our early history it did serve its purpose, but the conditions which made that compromise acceptable then mostly don't exist now.


It seems like most of the pro argument is centered around this flawed understanding:

With no EC, candidates would spend all their time in New York City, LA, Chicago, Philadelphia, and half a dozen other megalopolises - and nowhere else. The county-by-county election results map should demonstrate exactly why that would be the outcome.

So why do you think that is any greater evil than having what we have to day, and how well does the EC actually counter that?

Today candidates end up spending nearly all their time in just 6 or 7 "swing" states. The last few elections have hinged on states like Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and a few others. The most important swing states are not rural. And they get most of the candidates' time. To the point, how many candidates campaign in Wyoming? And when was the last time any of you gave a flying **** if a Democratic POTUS candidate came to your neighborhood? When is the last time it mattered in California that a Republican candidate campaigned there?

 

[HoughMade]

[video=youtube;V6s7jB6-GoU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6s7jB6-GoU[/video]

[video=youtube;LXnjGD7j2B0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXnjGD7j2B0[/video]

 

[Jludo]

I agree in not finding modern arguments for the ec compelling. They mostly hinge on the issues of direct democracy, which is a separate debate worth having.

 

[BroodXI]

I used to think the EC was flawed. Kind of see how it works now. I think we should still keep electorates, but each county gets 1 that is bound to the vote of the people. alas, i don't think that would fly in the sanctuary cities.

 

[RustyHornet]

[video=youtube;V6s7jB6-GoU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6s7jB6-GoU[/video]

[video=youtube;LXnjGD7j2B0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXnjGD7j2B0[/video]

Pretty much ends this discussion.... Love Prager U!

 

[eldirector]

The only issue I see, and I can be swayed, is that the rules for the EC differ state-to-state. I *think* I would like to see the EC required to follow the actual per-county vote totals, or even per-district. If a candidate "wins" a majority of the counties/districts, then they get the full compliment of EC votes for that state.

 

[Jludo]

Pretty much ends this discussion.... Love Prager U!

Like I said not compelling, which do you think is the best argument for the ec put forward?

 

[crispy]

The best argument for it? How about this:

Who do I trust more, the founding fathers... or the liberals running NPV?

 

[Jludo]

I especially dislike them pretending the ec is some buffer from direct democracy, it's not at all. The balance of powers is the check on direct democracy, electoral college doesn't prevent majority rule in any way. The country will accept either candidate when it gets to that point, the ec isn't going to step in and prevent a Hitler from being elected.

 

[Jludo]

The best argument for it? How about this:

Who do I trust more, the founding fathers... or the liberals running NPV?

They road horses everywhere and women couldn't vote. Their philosophy was correct in a lot of cases but appealing to the founders doesn't make a bullet proof argument.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The best argument for it? How about this:

Who do I trust more, the founding fathers... or the liberals running NPV?

So Trump president, Clinton vice president?

 

[JollyMon]

If they want to get rid of the electoral college, ask them if they also want to get rid of number of congress members based off population. All votes count should count the same, so all states should have equal say, similar to the senate.

 

[HoughMade]

The power of the states has been eroded and needs to be returned. Not only do we need to keep the EC, we need to repeal the 17th Amendment.

 

[Jludo]

If they want to get rid of the electoral college, ask them if they also want to get rid of number of congress members based off population. All votes count should count the same, so all states should have equal say, similar to the senate.

That's where the powers are supposed to be balanced though, where we don't want direct democracy. congress and the Senate. The ec does not serve the same balancing role, it simply distorts which states matter. If we don't want presidents elected based on popular vote we need to decide how we want them chosen, I don't believe the ec is a better alternative.

 

[jamil]

I agree in not finding modern arguments for the ec compelling. They mostly hinge on the issues of direct democracy, which is a separate debate worth having.

I don't want a direct democracy. And eliminating the EC won't do that.

The best argument for it? How about this:

Who do I trust more, the founding fathers... or the liberals running NPV?

The founding fathers didn't concoct the EC. The committee of 11 did. And the conditions upon which the arguments over it were contested mostly no longer exist.

Because "patriotism" isn't a good reason to keep it. If Hillary won the EC and lost the popular vote, I think a lot of you might be willing to loosen your grip on it.

If they want to get rid of the electoral college, ask them if they also want to get rid of number of congress members based off population. All votes count should count the same, so all states should have equal say, similar to the senate.

We can get rid of the parts of the EC that suck and keep the parts that are beneficial. I'll post my thoughts on that in a few minutes.

 

[jamil]

So here's my thinking on American voting. There are three components to the EC for discussion, some of which are outdated or don't actually do what we keep saying they do. One of which has some merit but not the way we do it.

1) Indirect vote: Contrary to what at least two posters have asserted, this does not make us any more a republic than if we voted directly for POTUS. The thing that makes us a republic is the fact that we give representatives power to make laws, interpret them, and carry them out. We are a democratic Republic because we use a democratic process to select our leaders. We would still be a Republic without requiring the proxy component of the EC. So please stop saying that.


As far as the practical need for indirect vote, it's nonexistent and unsupported by most people. Especially now, allowing the possibility for electors to circumvent the will of the people is not practical. Some states have even made it illegal for their electors to vote for anyone but the candidate the voters chose. The case for indirect electors was very narrow to begin with, and the conditions under which it was agreed upon have long vanished. It is an out of date concept.


2) Winner take all: This is the biggest problem with the EC. I suppose on one hand it does tend to make elections more a function of states than people. However, that works both ways. In nearly every recent election there is a very wide path for Democrats because they occupy most of the most populated states. The Democrat is a lock in California and New York. There are indeed more "Red states", but each has far fewer electors. The idea of the EC is to give rural states more leverage, but because we have super states, it creates a de facto advantage for the most urban states anyway.


3) Two disproportional votes per state. Now this is the aspect of the EC that has some merit. I think it is beneficial for the nation to give rural states a little more leverage, and give statehood itself part of the voting power. I would like this aspect of the Electoral College even more if Senators went back to being appointed by states rather than being elected by the general public. The legislative body that was designated as the People's House is the House of Representatives. The Senate is supposed to represent the states. I generally agree with this idea, though it would be more effective if we eliminated the two party system.


So here's how I would amend the way we elect representatives and presidents.


First, eliminate the two-party system. Not easy with the current government intwined primary system we have now. So that needs to change such that the system doesn't ensure a logical conclusion of just two parties fighting it out for power every election.


Second, eliminate the indirect vote. It is unnecessary. It's evolved into virtually an automatic vote anyway, so we might as well make it official and no longer require electors to vote according to the state election results. Just proportion the election results accordingly, automatically.


Third, eliminate winner take all. It is this aspect that widens the path for candidates that represent the urban world views and narrows the path for rural world views. However it might advantage rural states, its effect advantages populated states even more.


I would keep the idea of proportional electoral power where number of representatives determines the electoral power. So if Indiana had two candidates for PUTUS, and popular vote goes 63% for candidate A. So in the national tally, 7 electoral votes go to candidate A, and 4 go to candidate B. And if we don't think that represents rural states enough, maybe it goes 2 electoral votes per senator. Or whatever. If the idea is to even out the disparity between rural and urban states, we can determine a factor which does that. Maybe it could be determined based on rural vs urban population distribution such that rural states are heavier weighted than urban states.

 

[jamil]

That's where the powers are supposed to be balanced though, where we don't want direct democracy. congress and the Senate. The ec does not serve the same balancing role, it simply distorts which states matter. If we don't want presidents elected based on popular vote we need to decide how we want them chosen, I don't believe the ec is a better alternative.

Having the public's votes directly elect the president isn't what would make us a direct democracy. in other words, indirectly voting for President doesn't make us any more a Republic than if we voted directly for the President.

 

[Streck-Fu]

I especially dislike them pretending the ec is some buffer from direct democracy, it's not at all. The balance of powers is the check on direct democracy, electoral college doesn't prevent majority rule in any way. The country will accept either candidate when it gets to that point, the ec isn't going to step in and prevent a Hitler from being elected.

Not true. Though now, less a protection from majority rules Democracy than it used to be, it still greatly limits the influence a single state's population can have on any given election.


I've been seeing a Slate.com article being shared as a criticism of the Electoral College and how it is and archive of a racist and sexist society.... LINK



And here was Slate defending the Electoral College because it ensured an Obama victory in 2012 against all those racists in flyover country: LINK


And if you love having the popular vote influence the electors of each state, you thank the Jacksonian Democrats....LINK

The dissatisfaction of Jackson's supporters was consistent with the increasing democratization of American government. Presidential elections were increasingly being decided by popular vote, with the big transition occurring in the 1820s. In the election of 1820, nine states still chose their electors in their state legislatures, but by 1824, when John Quincy Adams was elected, only six did. In 1828, when Andrew Jackson unseated Adams to become president, only two states had their legislatures choose their electors.

The increasingly democratic election methods came along with the formation of the Democratic party, which was organized for the specific purpose of electing Andrew Jackson to the presidency. Jackson's supporters, led by Martin Van Buren, formed the Democratic party after the election of 1824 to ensure that in the next election Jackson would get a majority of the electoral votes, and so could not be denied the presidency by an elitist House of Representatives.
Van Buren’s efforts would undoubtedly have gone in a different direction had the electoral college actually functioned as the Founders intended. The formation of a political party to get popular support made a great deal of sense under the new system in which the president was chosen by popular vote, but would have made no sense a few decades before, when most electors were chosen by their state legislatures. The formation of the Democratic party was a significant event in American politics, but the party was formed only because of the transformation of the electoral college.

Van Buren's efforts to form the Democratic party began even before John Quincy Adams was inaugurated as president. Although Adams' bargain to appoint Clay as Secretary of State seemed reasonable to Adams, and there was no doubt that Clay was eminently qualified, Van Buren was quick to paint Adams as undertaking partisan activity. In contrast to presidents over the previous two decades, Adams had a very narrow base of political support, which in itself created political opposition and enhanced the appearance of factionalism. Adams could only appeal to his supporters in order to accomplish anything while in office, enhancing the appearance of governance by a political elite. Although the "corrupt bargain" between Adams and Clay gave Adams the immediate reward of the presidency, it also initiated the process that unseated him four years later, gave rise to the party system that has dominated American politics since, and greatly accelerated the movement of the United States toward democracy as its fundamental principle.

 

[Jludo]

I don't want a direct democracy. And eliminating the EC won't do that.

Did I accuse you of that?

 

[Jludo]

Not true. Though now, less a protection from majority rules Democracy than it used to be, it still greatly limits the influence a single state's population can have on any given election.

How so? A state still has influence proportional to it's population. Is there a scenario in which the EC would go against what their constituents voted for? As to protect us from 'direct democracy'?