THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE -- SHOULD IT STAY OR SHOULD IT GO NOW?

[HairOfTheDog]

Hillary Clinton is ahead by several hundred thousand popular votes and that margin is expected to increase when all the ballots from California and New York are tallied.

But, she will still fall short of the necessary 270 electoral college votes needed for victory. Donald Trump earned the majority of the electoral college votes, making him the winner of the election.

The same thing happened to Al Gore in 2000 and five other times in the nation's history. Over the years, there have been several calls to eliminate the electoral college, by both Republicans and Democrats.

The U.S.A. is the only democracy where the country's leader is not elected by the winner of the popular vote.

I'll post some background about the electoral college and how it works below.

[HairOfTheDog]

Origins of the Electoral College

The Electoral College represents a compromise among the drafters of the US Constitution — some of whom wanted Congress to pick the president while others argued for direct election by the people — and a victory for those who worried that young nation’s industrial centers would dominate its less populous rural interior.

It’s no accident that the last two beneficiaries of an Electoral College win were favorites of what we today call red states. The number each state’s electors is pegged to the size of its congressional delegation. But because each state — regardless of how many voters live there — gets two electors for each of its senators, the Electoral College gives an extra edge to less populous rural states which have long been Republican strongholds.



The Democrats’ strength in the urban centers is concentrated in relatively few states, giving them a smaller Electoral College base. Since every state except Nebraska and Maine award electors on a winner-take-all basis, a candidate able to pile up victories in sparsely populated states can win the presidency without winning the popular vote by pulling out narrow victories in a few larger states. That’s what Trump did last Tuesday.

[HairOfTheDog]

How Does the Electoral College Work?

The Electoral College has no campus. It’s run by two employees of the Federal Register, who spend most of their days preparing highly technical and legalistic copy for that publication, a daily compendium of new regulations and other official notices released by the US government. Once every four years, however, they play key roles in electing a new president.

The actual presidential election is a three part process that begins on Election Day when, by casting a ballot for a presidential candidate, voters effectively vote for that candidate’s slate of electors. These are usually party loyalists, donors or other key players the candidate or the candidates’ party wants to reward.

In all but two states the candidate who wins the state, regardless of his or her margin of victory, gets all of the electors. By law, these electors will gather in their respective state capitals on Dec. 19 for the second stage of the process — officially casting their votes.

Generally the electors vote as they are pledged, though there is now a petition at Change.org to ask this year’s crop to do otherwise.

Over the years, the Electoral College has been derided, including by its most recent beneficiary, Donald Trump.

[HairOfTheDog]

Proposals for Changing the Electoral System

In addition to the fact that the Electoral College sometimes contradicts the will of the electorate, there’s also lingering fear that a strong third party candidate could prevent any candidate from achieving a 270 majority, throwing the election into the House of Representatives, something that hasn’t happened since 1877.

By the Electoral College’s own count, there have been at least 700 measures introduced in Congress at various times to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. None of them have gone anywhere legislatively.

Meanwhile, a group called National Popular Vote has come up with a plan to end-around the cumbersome process of enacting an constitutional amendment. The idea is to get states representing a majority of the Electoral College vote to pledge their electors to the winner of the popular vote. So far, legislatures in 11 states representing 165 Electoral College votes — well short of the 270 needed to win the presidency — have agreed to do so. The effort has garnered bipartisan support, however. Two years ago, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a Georgia Republican who was one of Trump’s most vocal supporters in this year’s election, endorsed the proposed compact.

Supporters of the National Popular Vote initiative say they want to upend a system that, in recent presidential election years, has seen candidates focusing on the same handful of crucial battleground states and neglecting the rest. “It is a non-partisan effort to make every voter, in every state, politically relevant in every presidential election,” John Koza, the initiative’s leader, said in a statement to BillMoyers.com. In addition to guaranteeing that the winner of the popular vote would win the White House, he wrote, making the Electoral College a non-factor would “make voters in every state politically relevant to the candidates and their campaigns.”

Ref for posts 2 - 4: http://billmoyers.com/story/electoral-co...explained/

[HairOfTheDog]

I'm interested in whether you favor keeping the electoral college, or instead leaving it directly to the people to decide.

[Midwest Spy]

I'm interested in whether you favor keeping the electoral college, or instead leaving it directly to the people to decide.

If eliminating the Electoral College means big urban areas will have a skewed advantage toward electing a President, then No, I'm not in favor.

And yes, I live in an urban area of approximately 2.5-3M people.

As long as the Electoral College keeps the ratio of a state's population-to-number of votes allocated correct, I feel the system is fine.

[Midwest Spy]

BTW, this will probably be our last Old White Guy elected to the Oval.

[Duchess]

I have mixed feelings. I really like the fairness of every vote counting but I also agree with what MS said.

[HairOfTheDog]

I've been thinking about it more since Cars and blueberry posted about the electoral college a couple of times, and doing a little research.

I get MS's point as well. I think Six also expressed a similar line of thought in another thread.

I don't have a strong opinion either way, but now I'm leaning slightly towards favoring the removal of the electoral college. I think that might actually minimize the urban vs. rural issue over time.

I like the idea of candidates having to consider policies and messages that resonate with people across the country if they want to win the popular vote, instead of relying on the old Democratic and Republican strongholds and focusing on selected demographics. I'm tired of partisanship and pandering having such influence over who becomes our elected officials.

Candidates with a message that appeals to citizens across party lines can and have attracted a lot of support from citizens who were traditionally committed to a different party or didn't vote at all. We saw that with Bernie in the primaries and Trump in the general (Clinton too by getting more traditional Republican votes, but to a lesser extent).

Plus, I like the idea of doing away with party delegates who have systemic and personal loyalties to candidates. I don't think we the people need them between us and our candidates. In my opinion, that system hampers the ability of Independents and third party candidates (ones who aren't filthy rich or running at a time when pitting the people against the establishment is viable) to get heard by citizens in all areas of the country and to have a fair shot.

[username]

I'm interested in whether you favor keeping the electoral college, or instead leaving it directly to the people to decide.

q

If eliminating the Electoral College means big urban areas will have a skewed advantage toward electing a President, then No, I'm not in favor.

And yes, I live in an urban area of approximately 2.5-3M people.

As long as the Electoral College keeps the ratio of a state's population-to-number of votes allocated correct, I feel the system is fine.

I don't see why a vote isn't a vote regardless of where it came from. That's a true democracy. However, the bill to have the electorates vote based on the popular vote in their area is a step in the right direction.

With all the ways and means we have of voting, plus tv's in most every home etc., I don't think the rural areas need be under represented unless they just don't get off their fat asses to vote (so they don't deserve a vote as far as I'm concerned). Fuck them. I heard last night that roughly 45+% of the population didn't vote. I think the electoral college "fixes" that for them but it's inherently unfair. Majority ought to rule IMO.

[Maggot]

I guess it depends on who is winning and how.

[HairOfTheDog]

I guess it depends on who is winning and how.

That's definitely true for Donald Trump.

When he wrongly assumed the man he voted for had won the popular vote and lost the electoral vote in 2012, he tweeted this.


After winning the electoral vote and losing the popular vote himself, he criticized protesters and Tweeted this:


Trump's high if he truly believes he could have won New York and California. For the first time in 80 years, California's Republican stronghold (Orange County) voted Democrat. Clinton will probably win the popular vote by between 1 and 2 million after all the California ballots are counted. Flipping Wisconsin and Michigan was a great achievement for Trump and his campaign, no doubt. But, his winning strategy there, and how he did it, had the opposite effect here.

Anyway, Trump won the election fair and square according to the current criteria. Too bad he just can't be a gracious winner and accept that he did not win over the majority of voters. To me, it makes him look petty and like a sore winner/loser to make such "I coulda if I wanted to" claims on social media. I sure hope he stops doing shit like that by the time he becomes our President.

[Midwest Spy]

I agree here ^ with you HotD.

He reminds me of every blowhard I've known in my life when he says shit like that.

Please become a more decent person Don, that's all we ask of you.

[SIXFOOTERsez]

I think we need to keep it. I do not live in an over populated liberal bastion for a reason and I do not want those kinds of folks deciding who my president is to be.

[HairOfTheDog]

With all the ways and means we have of voting, plus tv's in most every home etc., I don't think the rural areas need be under represented unless they just don't get off their fat asses to vote (so they don't deserve a vote as far as I'm concerned). Fuck them. I heard last night that roughly 45+% of the population didn't vote. I think the electoral college "fixes" that for them but it's inherently unfair. Majority ought to rule IMO.

How do you really feel, French Fry?

Almost half of all eligible voters in every part of the country, rural and urban, don't get off their fat asses to vote. We rank 31 out of 35 countries in terms of percentage of people who vote in popular elections.

Still, it's looking like more people voted in 2016 than ever before and Hillary Clinton may well become the candidate who earned the most popular votes in our country's history (according to the latest estimates with almost all the ballots now counted). Part of that is due to the fact that the voter-age population has grown and she got more of the younger vote than Trump. In any case, I think it's great because it can serve as a popular check/balance to full GOP control of all branches of government.

I subscribe to the Wall Street Journal and they've got a great interactive map that shows the vote counts and percentages for each county across the country if you're interested in checking it out.
Ref: http://www.wsj.com/graphics/elections/20...-they-won/
Related stats: http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/results/

Anyway, I think I agree with you that the compromise solution -- states continuing to get a certain number of electoral votes, which would be awarded to the candidates according to the percentage of votes cast, instead of the current winner-take-all method -- might be the best and most fair solution, at least in the short term. It would likely encourage voter turn-out and discourage voter-suppression efforts. And, it would continue to ensure that the rural populations aren't disadvantaged just because only 20% or less of U.S. citizens live in rural areas. At the same time, it would increase the importance of each person's individual vote in every state across the country.

(As for the millions of people petitioning to have some form of popular vote count be the win-criteria for 2016, I disagree with them. It would be cheating to change the win-criteria after the game has already been played according to existing rules - not that I think it's gonna happen anyway.)

[Carsman]

Never thought Trump was gonna happen either! I never say never, until, I say never.


(Oh yeah, I've mentioned it elsewhere in other posts, and now again, I'm against the Electoral College vote! Popular count should win/rule)

[Duchess]

It's time to get rid of the electoral college AND gerrymandering. There is a huge problem when one wins the popular vote only to lose the electoral college. It keeps people in power against the will of the people. Every vote should count, but they don't.

[cannongal]

It's time to get rid of the electoral college AND gerrymandering. There is a huge problem when one wins the popular vote only to lose the electoral college. It keeps people in power against the will of the people. Every vote should count, but they don't.

We should get rid of the primary delegates,  too.  If 16 democratic candidates and 8 Republican candidates want to be on the ballot,  then by all means, let them.    I've never understood why we have to whittle it down to 2 choices. 

I should write in the butt guy.  He was the only democratic candidate that I liked.

[Duchess]

There seems to be a lot of archaic bullshit surrounding politics.

[Cutz]

I'm a city boy. I was mad about the whole electoral college thing after Bush v Gore. I've turned the page as I got older, and I have a greater appreciation for farmers and rural living. Maybe it's just from watching "The Ranch" on Netflix, but that farming shit is hard. Chores have a way different meaning in the suburbs.

I also understand that urban living is only supported by rural living. We wouldn't have enough food if everyone moved to a city. If that means their vote counts 1.0001% to my 1%, then I'll shut up and keep eating cheeseburgers.