The official "Electoral College is outdated" thread

[T.Lex]

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.

That's not exactly true, at least not in Indiana.

The electors are slated by party, then elected. Republicans will generally prefer the Republican candidate (or this year, at least detest the Democrat). I do believe other states have other mechanisms.

But, it is not accurate to say that the EC delegates are not elected for the purpose of selecting a specific candidate. The expectation is that if the candidate of their party wins, they will support that candidate. That is the expectation.

 

[Streck-Fu]

Perhaps some remediation is necessary:

It is apparent from the wording of this provision of the Constitution that the Founders did not intend for electors to be democratically elected (although they did not rule out the possibility), and is even more apparent that however the electors were chosen, they did not intend the method of choice to dictate how the electors would cast their ballots. Otherwise, why would the Constitution rule out federal officials as electors?


Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution continues, "The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves." The top vote getter would then become President if that person received votes from a majority of the electors, and the second-highest vote getter would become Vice President. This provision was changed slightly by the Twelfth Amendment in 1804 so that the President and Vice President were voted on separately, but the electoral college system remained essentially unchanged otherwise.


The Constitution has never bound electors to vote for specific candidates, and the Constitution makes it clear that the Founders envisioned electors using their discretion to select the candidates they viewed as best-qualified. That system remains intact at the end of the twentieth century, and even though electors are associated with specific candidates, it has not been uncommon for an occasional elector to break ranks and vote for someone other than the candidate chosen a state's voters.


In practice, most presidents have won election by receiving a majority of the electoral votes, but at the time the Constitution was written the Founders anticipated that in most cases no candidate would receive votes from a majority of the electors. The Founders reasoned that most electors would prefer candidates from their own states, so the typical elector would vote for one candidate from his own state and a candidate from another state, following the constitutional requirement, and it would be unlikely that voting along state lines would produce any candidate with a majority of votes.


This state bias is reinforced by the fact that these electors are constitutionally charged to meet in their states and then forward their votes to the President of the Senate to be counted. There is much less of an opportunity for consensus under this system than if the electors from all of the states gathered together in a common location, making it even more likely that no candidate would receive a majority.


Today, it is common for people to conjecture that electors were to meet in their own states rather than gather in a central location because transportation was much more difficult then. Yet it is apparent that the system of having electors meet in their own states rather than all together as one group serves another purpose: it makes it more difficult for the electoral college to arrive at a consensus when there is in fact no consensus candidate. Section II, Article 1 of the Constitution specifies that "...if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner choose the President." The Founders envisioned that in most cases no candidate would end up receiving votes from a majority of the electors, so the president would end up being chosen by the House of Representatives from the list of the five top electoral vote recipients.


As it has evolved, the actual practice of electing a president is quite different from the way that the Founders intended. The Founders intended electoral votes to be cast by electors who would be more knowledgeable than the general public, rather than by popular mandate, and the Founders envisioned that in most cases the final decision would be made by the House of Representatives rather than the electors anyway. Furthermore, there was no indication that the number of electoral votes actually received should carry any weight besides creating a list of the top five candidates. The House could then use its discretion to determine who on that list would make the best president.


Quite clearly, the process was not intended to be democratic, although it has evolved that way despite the fact that the Constitutional provisions for selecting a president remain essentially unchanged. As specified in the Constitution, the election process should resemble the way that a search committee might serve to locate a high-ranking corporate (or government, or academic) administrator. The committee, like the electoral college, would develop a list of candidates, and the CEO (or bureau chief, or university president) would then select his or her most preferred candidate from the list. As it actually has evolved, this multi-step process has been set aside in favor of popular elections.

 

[jamil]

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

They mostly do anyway, even with the EC. Super-states give Democrats a built in advantage in every election because most of the super-states lean Dem, and all their electoral power goes to their candidate.

For example anywhere from 11 to 15 million Republicans live in California. Their numbers add to that states electors. But every electionall of California's electoral power, including the portion that would represent Republicans--equivalent of the electoral power of Illinois--goes to Democrats.

Same kind of thing for New York, and the cumulative voting power of the eastern seaboard.

 

[jamil]

Perhaps some remediation is necessary:

Probably it would be better just to provide a link rather than copy/past.

 

[Jludo]

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.

We agree on this issue, I think you just prefer your default position of arguing with me...

 

[Streck-Fu]

And eliminating the EC, would mean that your example would be expanded nationally. Refer to the map I posted in #25.

The EC is one of several controls built into the limitations of power that ensures the rights of the minority are protected from the demands of the majority.

They mostly do anyway, even with the EC. Super-states give Democrats a built in advantage in every election because most of the super-states lean Dem, and all their electoral power goes to their candidate.

For example anywhere from 11 to 15 million Republicans live in California. Their numbers add to that states electors. But every electionall of California's electoral power, including the portion that would represent Republicans--equivalent of the electoral power of Illinois--goes to Democrats.

Same kind of thing for New York, and the cumulative voting power of the eastern seaboard.

 

[Streck-Fu]

Probably it would be better just to provide a link rather than copy/past.

It is more text from a link I posted in #18. It is the 3rd Link in that post.

 

[cosermann]

. . . 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.

Very similar to the EC. (535 EC votes comes from adding 100 Senators + 435 Representatives)

However, what you propose puts the final voting in one spot (more easily subverted than distributed voting), increases the power of congress (we don't really want that do we?), and as you say, politicians can play politics with their votes (whereas electors are forbidden from being office-holders).

I don't see how this is an improvement.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Dem introducing bill to abolish Electoral College | TheHill

 

[jamil]

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.

Yes, I did mean #31, but for a fuller explanation, post #16.

I am not applying my theory of electoral college to congress. The number of electors for a state is determined by that state's representation in congress and the senate. So when I say, "electoral power" that's what I mean.

And I'm not ignoring anything. If you read the last part of post #16, I do find merit in giving rural states more weight than urban states. The component of the EC I find most damaging to the rural world view is winner take all. It is not helping rural values in the way you claim. It hurts it.

 

[jamil]

Dem introducing bill to abolish Electoral College | TheHill

Well, that'll go nowhere. It requires a constitutional amendment. A constitutional amendment to determine the president by direct, popular vote just isn't going to happen, and I wouldn't argue that it should happen. I would rather see a compromise where we replace person electors with automatic electors, and make the electors proportionate with the state's popular vote.

 

[T.Lex]

Very similar to the EC. (535 EC votes comes from adding 100 Senators + 435 Representatives)

Shhhhh

 

[ATM]

...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...

My thoughts are very similar regarding the constitution.

Suitable for their society at that point in history, but not necessarily suitable for our society now.

Getting others to examine or discuss it in that context is difficult.

 

[T.Lex]

My thoughts are very similar regarding the constitution.

Suitable for their society at that point in history, but not necessarily suitable for our society now.

Getting others to examine or discuss it in that context is difficult.

And risky, IMHO.

The notion that a new constitutional convention would yield a document more conservative than the existing one is naive, on a good day.

 

[jamil]

We agree on this issue, I think you just prefer your default position of arguing with me...

And eliminating the EC, would mean that your example would be expanded nationally. Refer to the map I posted in #25.

The EC is one of several controls built into the limitations of power that ensures the rights of the minority are protected from the demands of the majority.

I've seen the map. I've done the math. Because of superstates, which had relatively much less impact on the original 13 states, that vary component of protection for rural values now gives urban values a built in advantage for their candidates.

And who knows. Maybe the republic will last long enough to see the superstates implode from their own weight and their populations distributed among the other states. And maybe it's a self-correcting problem. Eventually.

 

[jamil]

My thoughts are very similar regarding the constitution.

Suitable for their society at that point in history, but not necessarily suitable for our society now.

Getting others to examine or discuss it in that context is difficult.

Well, so many people would rather worship the founders and what they created as a perpetual monument to patriotism. C'mon. Let's just look at what really happened. They weren't perfect. But they were indeed exceptional people trying to make a government that could protect the maximum liberty for the most people. But what worked for them then isn't necessarily what works now.

 

[Streck-Fu]

....that vary component of protection for rural values now gives urban values a built in advantage for their candidates.

And how is that protected if a purely popular election is used to select the president?

 

[ATM]

And risky, IMHO.

The notion that a new constitutional convention would yield a document more conservative than the existing one is naive, on a good day.

I avoid engaging in discussions that aren't risky, fun, or both.

 

[jamil]

And risky, IMHO.

The notion that a new constitutional convention would yield a document more conservative than the existing one is naive, on a good day.

Oh, with today's politicians? Moral entropy has ruined any possibility of later politicians being better than earlier ones. But that doesn't mean what the earlier ones created is ideal for all times. They didn't prohibit presidents from stacking the courts with ideologues.

 

[jamil]

And how is that protected if a purely popular election is used to select the president?

Did you still not read post #16? Why do you keep saying I want purely popular vote?