The official "Electoral College is outdated" thread

[jamil]

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.

The EC does not do that though. I agree with repealing the 17 Amendment though. I've been kinda thinking that if we did a proportional system keeping the idea of electoral power based on representation, the two electoral votes that represent the senate portion would be chosen by the state. For Indiana, 9 EC votes would be split according to popular Hoosier vote, then two of those votes would go according to the state.

 

[jamil]

Did I accuse you of that?

Haha, dude, I'm not accusing you of accusing me of that.

I'm just saying I wouldn't want a direct democracy and the EC has nothing to do with that anyway. If the committee of eleven would have chosen a different way to select a president, we'd still have been a republic.

 

[T.Lex]

This is what I learned from INGO this cycle: anyone who proposes anything that could possibly, in some way, improve the odds for HRC supports HRC, socialism, and evil.

So, logically, anyone that wants to reform the EC supports HRC, socialism and evil.

You're welcome.

 

[jamil]

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'?

Well, actually yes. EC is still a republican concept. The EC does protect against policy determined by consensus of the people. In a republic policy is determined by the consensus of representatives rather than directly by the people.

 

[Streck-Fu]

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'?

Half of the US population live in less than 103 of over 3000 counties in the US. Having a popular vote choose the President means that those very few shperes of influence will decide every election. An often overlooked truth is that a simple majority rules democracy can be just as tyrannical as any dictator.

Utilizing a simple democratic vote, the below areas in blue would decide the election every time.

View attachment 51293

 

[Jludo]

Well, actually yes. EC is still a republican concept. The EC does protect against policy determined by consensus of the people. In a republic policy is determined by the consensus of representatives rather than directly by the people.

The EC has nothing to do with policy, it has to do with electing the president, our republic protections lay within the 3 branches, not the EC. I'll ask again if you can envision any sort of scenario in which the EC votes against a president their electorate wants in order to preserve our republic?

 

[jamil]

This is what I learned from INGO this cycle: anyone who proposes anything that could possibly, in some way, improve the odds for HRC supports HRC, socialism, and evil.

So, logically, anyone that wants to reform the EC supports HRC, socialism and evil.

You're welcome.

I'm going to give INGO the benefit of the doubt and say INGO is just being patriotic, because they believe the "founding fathers" carefully crafted the EC from providence and wisdom and grit. I think what really happened, they couldn't accomplish an agreement on how to choose a president so they picked 11 people to form a committee and hammer it out. The EC is what they came up with, which seemed to solve most of the disagreements at the constitutional convention. The holy grail of "republicanism" turns out to have been a compromise, you know, that dirty word.

 

[Streck-Fu]

The EC has nothing to do with policy, it has to do with electing the president, our republic protections lay within the 3 branches, not the EC. I'll ask again if you can envision any sort of scenario in which the EC votes against a president their electorate wants in order to preserve our republic?

You continue to completely miss the effect of the EC.

It limits the effect any given state's population on an election. Meaning, California and New York can't decide every election. At the same time, it reduces the effect of more populous states while increasing the effect of the less populous states.

Presidents develop policy, therefore, the EC has an effect on policy.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'm going to give INGO the benefit of the doubt and say INGO is just being patriotic, because they believe the "founding fathers" carefully crafted the EC from providence and wisdom and grit. I think what really happened, they couldn't accomplish an agreement on how to choose a president so they picked 11 people to form a committee and hammer it out. The EC is what they came up with, which seemed to solve most of the disagreements at the constitutional convention. The holy grail of "republicanism" turns out to have been a compromise, you know, that dirty word.

The electoral college will should stay. I'm ok with it as it is. When an election awards a presidency to a guy who is miliions of votes behind in the popular vote, then it should be revisited. Several hundred thousands across multiple states, I'm ok with.

 

[T.Lex]

I'm going to give INGO the benefit of the doubt and say INGO is just being patriotic, because they believe the "founding fathers" carefully crafted the EC from providence and wisdom and grit. I think what really happened, they couldn't accomplish an agreement on how to choose a president so they picked 11 people to form a committee and hammer it out. The EC is what they came up with, which seemed to solve most of the disagreements at the constitutional convention. The holy grail of "republicanism" turns out to have been a compromise, you know, that dirty word.

Well, in their defense, principled and practical compromise was considered even honorable back then.

My how times have changed.

IMHO, because you asked, all of the same competing factors present then exist today, making the EC a good, safe mechanism. Perhaps even more so given the greater suffrage and the factions that flow from it.

Modernity hasn't really changed human nature.

 

[jamil]

The EC has nothing to do with policy, it has to do with electing the president, our republic protections lay within the 3 branches, not the EC. I'll ask again if you can envision any sort of scenario in which the EC votes against a president their electorate wants in order to preserve our republic?

That's actually my point. If it were a direct democracy, policy would be chosen by a consensus of the people. The president and congress works together to determine policy. The resulting policies end up being often different from what they'd have been if they were directly chosen. After Sandy Hook, do you think that a direct democracy would have given us more or the same or fewer gun control laws? We escaped that because we lobbied our representatives, some of whom represented folks from the other side of the isle.

So yes, a republic does indeed protect us from the mob rule of direct democracy. And as further protection from bad policies, we have the other checks and balances, for what they're worth.

 

[T.Lex]

Presidents develop policy, therefore, the EC has an effect on policy.

I think this is an oversimplification that doesn't really help the discussion.

The people pick the EC delegates who pick the president. In a direct way, the people pick the president to produce the preferred policies.

 

[jamil]

You continue to completely miss the effect of the EC.

It limits the effect any given state's population on an election. Meaning, California and New York can't decide every election. At the same time, it reduces the effect of more populous states while increasing the effect of the less populous states.

Presidents develop policy, therefore, the EC has an effect on policy.

No. It exacerbates it.

 

[Streck-Fu]

No. It exacerbates it.

Explain how.

 

[jamil]

People, look at the 3 components of the EC that I described above. Some do some of the things we think they do and some don't. My biggest problem with the EC is the winner take all. THAT is what gives super-populated states such a great advantage. And as more and more states become more populated, it will only get worse.

Urban dwellers have a different world view from rural dwellers. Genearally urban areas vote 60/40 Democrat. Rural dwellers generally vote Republican 80/20. I saw a state somewhere that this election went 90/10 to Trump in rural elections.

It's the rural world view I want to preserve by eliminating the EC as it is today. I want to get rid of the winner take all, and indirect vote aspects, while preserving the added state electoral power.

 

[jamil]

Explain how.

I have. It's a long read. But I have. The shorter version post #33.

 

[cosermann]

Subtract the likely 2M illegals that voted, and Trump won both the popular vote and EC. It's a good example of how the EC is some protection against corruption and subversion in that such would have to be widespread. Doesn't prevent it, but mitigates it somewhat.

Read Federalist Papers #39 and #68.

Should we get rid of the Senate too? I mean, you know, it's "outdated." It's just 100 more people voting on stuff. Why aren't the 435 U.S. Representatives enough?

 

[Streck-Fu]

I think this is an oversimplification that doesn't really help the discussion.

The people pick the EC delegates who pick the president. In a direct way, the people pick the president to produce the preferred policies.

The do not select the electors for the purpose of selecting a specific candidate. The two elections are completely separated. Meaning, the people of a state do not select an elector that promises to support Trump or Hillary. Therefore, they are not selecting electors to choose the candidate they prefer.

 

[T.Lex]

Heya. Here's a hokey idea.

Remember when we talked about how messed up it would be if no one got 270?

Here's a replacement for the EC that I'd consider.

Congress. Both chambers.

Have a popular vote. Each congressional district can (but is only required to if state law requires it) vote according to how the voters in that district voted. Each senator can (same proviso) vote according to the state vote.

It would make the congressional elections MUCH more important.

The factors that led to the creation of the EC also led to how we elect congress.

Huge potential downside: politicians playing politics with their presidential votes.

Now, that is only a potential downside - it could also mean good things for swing districts.

 

[Streck-Fu]

I have. It's a long read. But I have. The shorter version post #33.

If you meant post #31, you applying your theory of the electoral college to Congress which is not the same as the Presidency. And you completely ignore the reality that only the most populated cities would choose the president. Literally, you are relying on LA, San Fran, Chicago, Miami, New Orleans, and New York to select a President.