Abolish the Electoral College

[SkyDekker 1,465]

On 3/20/2019 at 11:32 AM, DJL said:

While I don't agree with many aspects of the electoral college as far as numerical representation goes I also don't think it's in the interests of the nation to have our path dominated by the interests of the more highly populated coastal states.

Isn't that path dominated by more than just President and VP? Doesn't Senate and House have some influence in this, maybe even more than just the president and VP?

[kallend 2,027]

On 3/20/2019 at 1:32 PM, DJL said:

While I don't agree with many aspects of the electoral college as far as numerical representation goes I also don't think it's in the interests of the nation to have our path dominated by the interests of the more highly populated coastal states.

Well, in the past 20 years we have 2 presidents whose path to election was dominated by a minority.  How exactly is that better?  Why is tyranny of the minority better than tyranny of the majority?

[DJL 235]

2 minutes ago, kallend said:

Well, in the past 20 years we have 2 presidents whose path to election was dominated by a minority.  How exactly is that better?  Why is tyranny of the minority better than tyranny of the majority?

I think it's a little dramatic to call it Tyranny but it's a fault that swings one way and then the other at a glacial pace.  It would be politically impossible to set up a more reactive handicap system that would balance long term national interests against short term popularity.  You'll have a much better outcome by fielding candidates who represent the interests of both heavily populated cities and sparsely populated rural areas.  The fact that they're sparsely populated doesn't make their industries and needs less important to the national interest.

[jakee 1,500]

3 hours ago, BillyVance said:

Especially when there are several entire states with less population than Los Angeles County.

So what? I mean seriously, who gives a damn?

 

Just because an arbitrary decision was made at some point in time to draw a line on a map around a given quantity of land, the people who live in that land should now wield significant amounts of political power over people who live in LA?

[GeorgiaDon 362]

Here is an interesting article that makes the case that the 12th amendment, which established the "modern" form of the electoral college, was largely motivated by the desire to keep Virginia and other slave states from being "outvoted" by the northern states.  The problem was that Virginia (and other slave states) had small populations of voters compared to northern states, even though the total populations were much more similar.  Much of Virginia's population was made up of slaves, and of course Virginia was not about to let them actually vote.  How to count the slaves towards the presidential election without letting them vote?  The answer was to assign a certain number of electoral college votes to a state based on it's population.  Within a state the "popular vote" (which excluded slaves) would translate into a number of "electoral college votes" which were roughly proportional to the total population (including slaves).  The electoral college as structured by the 12th amendment was designed to allow slave states to have their cake and eat it too.  In my opinion, besides the gross unfairness of the disparity of electoral college votes per unit population (BTW Texas loses out as much as California does), the whole system is tainted by it's roots in slavery.

Also, the argument that low population states like Alabama should be given an "extra helping" of votes so they can be equal to high population states like Texas or California is uncomfortably parallel to the argument that Jefferson made at the time of the 12th amendment, that Virginia should be considered equal to New York or Pennsylvannia despite that they chose to consider most of their population to be sub-human.

Billy's argument that people who live in cities are less worthy US citizens than people who live in the country is contemptible and repellent.  It is not materially different from arguments that some people are worth more because of the color of their skin, or any other arbitrary characteristic.  BTW I live in the country, on a farm, and even on a dirt road for that matter.  In no way do I consider myself to be superior to people who live in town, but of course they are also not inherently superior to me just because of where their mail gets delivered.

Don

[jakee 1,500]

29 minutes ago, GeorgiaDon said:

Here is an interesting article that makes the case that the 12th amendment, which established the "modern" form of the electoral college, was largely motivated by the desire to keep Virginia and other slave states from being "outvoted" by the northern states.  The problem was that Virginia (and other slave states) had small populations of voters compared to northern states, even though the total populations were much more similar.  Much of Virginia's population was made up of slaves, and of course Virginia was not about to let them actually vote.  How to count the slaves towards the presidential election without letting them vote?  The answer was to assign a certain number of electoral college votes to a state based on it's population.  Within a state the "popular vote" (which excluded slaves) would translate into a number of "electoral college votes" which were roughly proportional to the total population (including slaves).  The electoral college as structured by the 12th amendment was designed to allow slave states to have their cake and eat it too.  In my opinion, besides the gross unfairness of the disparity of electoral college votes per unit population (BTW Texas loses out as much as California does), the whole system is tainted by it's roots in slavery.

That doesn't make sense, because the main thing the 12th Amendment did was to make Electors specify a vote for President and a vote for VP, rather than casting two equal votes for two different people. It happened because the original counting system was an organisational clusterfuck that resulted in what was essentially a hung election between two candidates on the same ticket.

 

The three fifths compromise was part of the original Constitution, and was not changed in any way by the 12th Amendment. The three fifths compromise affected the EC from the moment it was invented by the original text of the US Constitution. However the three fifths compromise only indirectly affects the Electoral College. The direct impact of the three fifths compromise was the number of Congressmen in the House that each state would get, the knock on effect on the EC being that EC voters for each State equals number of Senators plus Congressmen.

 

So, to repeat myself, if you believe the Electoral College should be abolished because it is tarnished by association with slavery, you must also support the abolition of the House of Representatives.

[gowlerk 2,206]

Forgive me if I'm wrong. The formula for determining Congressional representation and therefore EC members is complicated. But I believe it is based on population numbers derived from the census. The census counts the population of residents, not citizens. Therefore States with large numbers of immigrants, potentially illegal, will have an advantage. And they are counted at face value, not 3/5s each!

[airdvr 210]

You're looking at this backwards.  The electoral college exists to make sure that a candidate doesn't ignore a state simply because it's population is low.  Without the EC a candidate could simply pander to the combination of states with the amount of population to garner a popular vote victory.

[ryoder 1,590]

18 minutes ago, airdvr said:

You're looking at this backwards.  The electoral college exists to make sure that a candidate doesn't ignore a state simply because it's population is low.  Without the EC a candidate could simply pander to the combination of states with the amount of population to garner a popular vote victory.

Then how do you explain all these states that were ignored in 2016:

Alabama

Alaska

Arkansas

Delaware

District of Columbia

Hawaii

Idaho

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maryland

Massachusetts

Montana

New Jersey

New York

North Dakota

Oklahoma

Oregon

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Vermont

West Virginia

Wyoming

 

Source: https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/campaign-events-2016

The EC was created to preserve slavery. Period.

[airdvr 210]

I find it difficult to believe there were no “campaign events” in the State of New York in 2016.  And you can pay attention to a state without actually holding a "campaign event".

From the link... “Campaign events” are defined here as public events in which a candidate is soliciting the state’s voters (e.g., rallies, speeches, fairs, town hall meetings). This count of "campaign events" does not include visits to a state for the sole purpose of conducting a private fund-raising event, participating in a presidential debate or media interview in a studio, giving a speech to an organization’s national convention, attending a non-campaign event (e.g., the Al Smith Dinner in New York City), visiting the campaign's own offices in a state, or attending a private meeting.

I think the definition needs a bit of work.

[kallend 2,027]

4 hours ago, airdvr said:

You're looking at this backwards.  The electoral college exists to make sure that a candidate doesn't ignore a state simply because it's population is low.  Without the EC a candidate could simply pander to the combination of states with the amount of population to garner a popular vote victory.

Federalist #68 does NOT support your claim.

[jakee 1,500]

5 hours ago, airdvr said:

You're looking at this backwards.  The electoral college exists to make sure that a candidate doesn't ignore a state simply because it's population is low.  Without the EC a candidate could simply pander to the combination of states with the amount of population to garner a popular vote victory.

Except that's not true, you've got it backwards. The EC exists so that the Deep State chooses the President, not the  population. The Constitution doesn't say there needs to be a popular vote in any state, or that the electors need to pay any attention to it if there is.

 

But, since voting just happens to be the way things ended up being done, now you have multiple States that were created with extremely low populations just to game the EC system.

[BIGUN 1,317]

22 hours ago, jakee said:

Bigun - there were no original citations in your quoted text. Sure you cited the source you got the text from, but the text itself is purely the opinion of its author. 

 

Claiming that that one cannot legitimately disagree with the content of that author’s opinion unless one has another author’s opinion to cite is utterly ridiculous.

That's not what happened. Did you even read the original article? It had both advantages and disadvantages. DId you watch the video and review the credibility of Professor Lowenstein? Did you see the part where I started out with "I too; used to believe the EC should be abolished?"

As to your second point: This started out as a discussion with opinions I gave mine and could have paraphrased the whole thing, but chose to give credit to some of the points I've read over the years and the why's of my going for abolishing the EC to against abolishing the EC. 

Many of us on here don't always agree, but Jerry has always been a first class gentlemen about it. "Barfing what he found on the Internet" has never been his style and now what I see is not a man of distinction with differing opinions; nor a man I'd like to sit down to dinner with to have opposing discussions with - I just see another angry democrat who wants to attack another's' position without offering any sources of his own and how he derived his opinion.      

[JerryBaumchen 1,367]

2 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Many of us on here don't always agree, but Jerry has always been a first class gentlemen about it. "Barfing what he found on the Internet" has never been his style and now what I see is not a man of distinction with differing opinions; nor a man I'd like to sit down to dinner with to have opposing discussions with - I just see another angry democrat who wants to attack another's' position without offering any sources of his own and how he derived his opinion.      

Hi Keith,

When you state an opinion, we can disagree.  However, when you state a fact, you need to be corrected.  I have not been a Democrat since 1967.  In fact, I spent 42 yrs registered as a Republican.

I did not leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me.

Jerry Baumchen

[airdvr 210]

10 hours ago, kallend said:

Federalist #68 does NOT support your claim.

James Madison agreed that election of the people at large was the best way to go about electing the president, but he knew that the less populous slave states would not be influential under such a system, and he backed the Electoral College. Another factor here was the so-called Three-Fifths Compromise, which gave added power to the slave-holding states under the Electoral College which they would not have had under any likely form of popular vote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._68

[jakee 1,500]

7 hours ago, BIGUN said:

That's not what happened.

It is what happened. You quoted a source which consists purely of the opinions of its author. It doesn't become more worthwhile than your own opinion or my own opinion just because it was written somewhere else first. I don't need to quote someone else in order to have a valid disagreement with it, I can use my own brain and my own words just as well.

 

Quote

Did you even read the original article? It had both advantages and disadvantages.

So why are you moaning about not being provided with opposing sources? You have an opposing source, and it is your source.

 

Quote

DId you watch the video and review the credibility of Professor Lowenstein? 

Did you watch it and review his actual argument? Paraphrasing; he worked in state government therefore he is personally biased towards anything which empowers states as political blocks. The US has had good Presidents (note he does not even attempt to argue the US would not have had good presidents otherwise). If something heinous is uncovered during the 6 weeks between the popular vote and the EC vote the presumptive President Elect can be booted by the EC and this would apparently not cause a fuss or involve the courts (LOL). Why it doesn't matter if something heinous is uncovered in the 6 weeks (or even 4 years) after the EC casts their votes, I'm not exactly sure.

 

Anyway, that's the guy you want to hang your hat on? Those are the arguments you want to go with? Really? Like, that's seriously the best you've got?

 

Quote

Did you see the part where I started out with "I too; used to believe the EC should be abolished?"

Yeah, but so what? Is your opinion now more valid than mine or Jerry's simply because you once changed your mind?

[yoink 321]

On 3/22/2019 at 4:41 PM, airdvr said:

You're looking at this backwards.  The electoral college exists to make sure that a candidate doesn't ignore a state simply because it's population is low.  Without the EC a candidate could simply pander to the combination of states with the amount of population to garner a popular vote victory.

People in favor of the electoral college keep saying this but haven't really looked at the mathematics of it.

 

It's simply not true.

 

 

CGP Grey edumacates folk. Skip to 3:17 for an idiots guide as to why, but the cliffs notes version is that if you won the 100 biggest cities in the US because you focused your time there you'd win less than 20% of the popular vote.

 

In fact, not only is it not true, but it's exactly backwards. The system we have encourages candidates to actively ignore large population centers and it behooves them to spend the MOST time where lots of electoral college votes are held by relatively small populations. Same link - skip to 4:16 to see how you can win the election by focusing on the SMALLEST populations and have less than 22% of the popular vote but still win the electoral college.

 

So not only do you have the same situation you're apparently concerned about - a politician 'ignoring' a population or area because of the effect it has on their chances to win, but rather now it's ignoring the areas where MOST Americans live. To decide the American president... That's just fucking nuts.

 

 

Edited March 25, 2019 by yoink

[DJL 235]

On 3/22/2019 at 7:41 PM, airdvr said:

You're looking at this backwards.  The electoral college exists to make sure that a candidate doesn't ignore a state simply because it's population is low.  Without the EC a candidate could simply pander to the combination of states with the amount of population to garner a popular vote victory.

This is why I agree that population is not the ultimate factor in voting.  If a state's economic and social needs are not met and their influence is eroded you'll see further and further disparity against that member state.  A very good example of this is that rural areas have very little influence on how much funding their schools receive because their votes count so little in changing how school funding is created.  Higher population centers simply outvote them because they see it as their tax dollars being used for someone else's kids.  The result is that fewer and fewer people economically advantaged people are willing to move to those areas so they see an intellectual exodus.  Another example is the agriculture industry.  It's vitally important to trade and our national interest yet the highly populated centers may simply outvote measures that keep it safe.

[kallend 2,027]

Why is tyranny of the minority to be preferred to tyranny of the majority?

Why do lines drawn on a map, mostly well over 100 years ago, have any bearing on who should be president?

[airdvr 210]

15 hours ago, kallend said:

Why is tyranny of the minority to be preferred to tyranny of the majority?

Why do lines drawn on a map, mostly well over 100 years ago, have any bearing on who should be president?

You really DO see it as tyranny...Ya know, it's very easy for people who live in half million dollar homes to look down upon the minions and have disdain for any power they wield.  Your ivory tower is calling.

[GeorgiaDon 362]

8 minutes ago, airdvr said:

You really DO see it as tyranny...Ya know, it's very easy for people who live in half million dollar homes to look down upon the minions and have disdain for any power they wield.  Your ivory tower is calling.

Why should people who live in cities be held in disdain?

Why should people who live in places where real estate values are high be held in disdain and denied an equal vote?

It's pretty remarkable that Americans can claim that they have the best democracy in the history of the world, yet they are comfortable with allowing some citizens 4 or 5 times the voting power of other citizens based solely on where they happen to live.  Of course until relatively recently Americans were also comfortable with denying some people any vote at all, based on the amount of melanin in their skin.  One might begin to suspect that many Americans don't really believe in democracy at all.  All they care about is having power over others.

Don

[kallend 2,027]

24 minutes ago, airdvr said:

You really DO see it as tyranny...Ya know, it's very easy for people who live in half million dollar homes to look down upon the minions and have disdain for any power they wield.  Your ivory tower is calling.

Alexis de Tocqueville (1805–1859) first coined the phrase "tyranny of the majority" about the USA.  I'm surprised your knowledge of your country's history is so sparse.

[jakee 1,500]

On 3/25/2019 at 1:24 PM, DJL said:

A very good example of this is that rural areas have very little influence on how much funding their schools receive because their votes count so little in changing how school funding is created.  Higher population centers simply outvote them because they see it as their tax dollars being used for someone else's kids.

The extension of the logic being that inner city schools are the envy of the nation?

[yoink 321]

4 hours ago, airdvr said:

You really DO see it as tyranny...Ya know, it's very easy for people who live in half million dollar homes to look down upon the minions and have disdain for any power they wield.  Your ivory tower is calling.

It's not disdain for ANY power they wield. It's frustration at the unbalanced amount of power they wield.

 

Your vote should count for exactly the same as mine when it comes to selecting a person to represent us both. Regardless of where we live. 

ANY other system is inherently unfair to one of the two parties.

[airdvr 210]

4 hours ago, kallend said:

Alexis de Tocqueville (1805–1859) first coined the phrase "tyranny of the majority" about the USA.  I'm surprised your knowledge of your country's history is so sparse.

I guess my knowledge of history is sparse.  Never studied the man.  I do know he is famous for saying something to the effect of "a Democracy will only last until the population discovers they can vote themselves more money".  Hello AOC.

Edited March 26, 2019 by airdvr