The official "Electoral College is outdated" thread

[Dosproduction]

Yeah I think the states sq miles should be divided by the total electorates it has and then some sort of gerrymandering to figure out which electorate goes with what area. Then the electorate has to vote as that area did.

Direct democracy is bad it leads to the majority dictating to the minority like slavery...

Imagine if Chicago LA and NY city ended up with 80 % of the population for some reason. Then all the candidates have to do is go there and take the whole country. Also big urban areas do not represent rural areas any better then vice versa.

No simple solution either way.

 

[jamil]

Let's really make it simple.
How about 1 vote per state?

Ooh. Ooh. How about the governors of each state vote for POTUS?

 

[T.Lex]

So, I realized this last night - if we went by congressional district, it would be a slim Republican lead. Like the House.

If we also added a couple votes per state to balance out big state/small state, then there'd be a slim Republican lead. Like the Senate.

Not perfectly analogous, but informative, I think.

Basically, we would still end up where we are.

 

[actaeon277]

The Electoral College is outdated
The Constitution is outdated.
The bill of Rights is outdated.

Sounds to me like some people don't know what outdated means.
They think anything that doesn't work to their benefit, all the time, is outdated.

 

[T.Lex]

The Electoral College is outdated
The Constitution is outdated.
The bill of Rights is outdated.

Sounds to me like some people don't know what outdated means.
They think anything that doesn't work to their benefit, all the time, is outdated.

^^ This post is outdated.

 

[chipbennett]

Which candidate actually received the EC votes which Johnson would have received according to the alternate study?

The results speak for themselves, no?

Johnson would have produced a near tie between the other two as a spoiler. Otherwise, Trump won.

I don't see that as a valid analysis, because you have no idea for whom the Johnson voters would have cast their vote, between Trump and Clinton.

 

[chipbennett]

The numbers you shared challenge that.

Without Johnson, Trump wins by several but less than 10.

With Johnson, Trump wins by 1.

Being a libertarian, I'm good at basic math, so I'll need you to explain and show your work, please.

You're basing your math on a false assumption. You have no basis for stating "without Johnson" results as known. And, based on what you're stating here, if Johnson reduces the margin of a Trump victory in a given state, then voting for Johnson in that state adversely impacts Trump's outcome. Ergo, a vote for Johnson helps Clinton.

 

[chipbennett]

So you don't think your vote should count for more than someone living in a big city.

Why do you keep asking this question? It is irrelevant in the context of an election involving a Republic of sovereign States. It is the will of the States that matters, not the will of the individual voters of those States.

 

[Streck-Fu]

Quoting my previous post to reflect the update with McMillin taking one vote from Johnson in Utah. And it changes the election results to Hillary.

Just for the hell of it, I took at look at how the results from this election would look if each state's electoral votes were distributed according to the candidates share of the state's popular election. It really changes things. Most states were very close. I first did it for Trump and Hillary only and Trump would still win by several electoral votes but less than 10. But when looking at the state results, I saw that Johnson took a good percentage of some states (some over 5%) especially in Wash, Oregon, Cal, and Illinois, Texas, etc so I went back and added in his share.
EDITED TO ADD: McMullin took 20% of Utah earning 1 electoral vote. Johnson took 3% so the EVs in Utah are Trump=3, Hillary =2, and McMillin = 1


The final results are:
Hillary = 264
Trump = 263
Johnson = 9
McMullin = 1


There is 1 electoral vote lost in the fractions across 50 states.

Attached is my spreadsheet:
View attachment 51311

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Ooh. Ooh. How about the governors of each state vote for POTUS?

You do realize that Republicans are Governors in 33 states right now, right?

 

[Streck-Fu]

FOUND THE MISSING EV!

Jill Stein in CA took 1 electoral Vote! And took it from Hillary..

Trump= 264
Hillary= 263
Johnson = 9
McMillin = 1
Stein = 1

 

[jamil]

The Electoral College is outdated
The Constitution is outdated.
The bill of Rights is outdated.

Sounds to me like some people don't know what outdated means.
They think anything that doesn't work to their benefit, all the time, is outdated.

While I do think the EC is mostly outdated, I do not think the constitution is outdated, and therefor neither is the BoR. The constitution has a process to amend it, and people need to use that process instead of complaining that they think it's outdated. And if they don't have the support necessary to change it, well, that proves the system is kinda working.

And those of us who think the EC, as it is now, is harming us more than helping us, if we can't make the case strong enough to get it changed, well, that is how it works.

 

[HubertGummer]

The Electoral College is outdated
The Constitution is outdated.
The bill of Rights is outdated.

Sounds to me like some people don't know what outdated means.
They think anything that doesn't work to their benefit, all the time, is outdated.

This is the problem. For the most part Democrats/Liberals are just big babies who can't handle not getting their way.

If I (we) had to live with Obama for 8 years they can give trump a chance for 4.

 

[foszoe]

I haven't been convinced the EC is harming us. Maybe that's why I still see no need for change

 

[Lex Concord]

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.

I share the same sentiment with everyone who will listen. Yes, both of them.

 

[jamil]

I share the same sentiment with everyone who will listen. Yes, both of them.

Most people just look at me like I'm crazy.

 

[Dosproduction]

I know it is huff but well written defense of EC. The Electoral College Is Vital To Freedom And Peace | The Huffington Post

 

[jamil]

I know it is huff but well written defense of EC. The Electoral College Is Vital To Freedom And Peace | The Huffington Post

He makes an excellent case for why it's necessary but he doesn't do very well at establishing that the EC actually does that, especially now. Also, he states some things to support its efficacy that is flatly untrue:

That is why the people of Idaho, many of whom may find the societal values in places like New York or California abhorrent, agree to abide a chief executive who most likely comes from a place like that – because they and their culture have an equal say in electing him, even if they’re outnumbered.

This is nonsense. Idaho doesn't have an equal say. Idaho has only 4 electoral votes. California has 55. The only thing that makes rural states have any say is that collectively they outnumber the highly populated states, and thus have enough electors to compete depending how the swing states go. But that is changing. Once red states are now blue, Trump anomaly notwithstanding. Texas could flip within the next decade. That would virtually assure that liberal politicians will win the electoral college. As it is, the path for most Republicans is very narrow. Trump had to nearly run the table on swing states, which he did. But had Democrats run a candidate that their voters would turn out for, Trump would have lost the EC.

To transform the republic to a pure democracy and allow a few, cosmopolitan states to rule over people who don’t share their beliefs would truly be tyranny and a threat to domestic peace.

This is nonsense as well. Even if we did vote directly for the President, that would not make us a pure democracy. Did this guy even take high school civics? The EC doesn't make us a Republic. The constitutional convention considered direct vote and if they'd have adopted that, WE'd STILL BE A REPUBLIC!

Let me make one thing clear. When I say I think the EC is outdated, I'm not saying that the concept of protecting rural states is outdated. I'm saying that the EC's ability to do that is outdated. Several months ago I was firmly in favor of the EC. Then I sat down for a few hours and crunched some numbers. I decided that the EC isn't going to help rural states for much longer. We'd probably be better off continuing with a modified EC. Eliminate the winner-take-all, but keep the electoral count the same, splitting the count according to vote percentage, and making the vote count automatic. In other words, no more electors.

 

[gregr]

The Founders were, rightfully so, deathly afraid of a true democracy. The Constitution was crafted in such a way that a majority couldn`t do away with the rights of an individual. The Electoral College is partially an extension of the break from a true democracy, inasmuch as, the popular vote doesn`t pick the president, but it also was intended to allow states with a smaller population to have the same voice as much more populace states. And yes indeed, the Founders were absolute genius in a great many ways, with the implementation of the Electoral College being one such way. It must stay as is, completely untouched.

 

[BugI02]

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:





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?

So like senate representation, give each state only 2 EC votes. Voilà! Now you need to appeal to a majority of states and every state is of equal importance to your efforts