The US Electoral System: a discussion

[Bob]

I can't agree with this. The state that my vote would count for always has it's electoral votes (all 4 of them) go to the democratic candidate. 100% of the time since statehood. I don't bother voting for the president as my vote is absolutely meaningless. So speaking as a voter from a small state, I can say the EC disfranchises voters who know their vote doesn't count.

That's pretty much everybody if you look at it that way. What are the chances of one vote deciding any statewide election? Of course cumulatively individual votes do matter. And who knows, Hawaii may go red or third party one day.

 

[Bob]

There is an agreement in process that would functionally abolish the Electoral College without the nearly impossible task of a constitutional amendment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

Basically, individual states comprising 51% of the Electoral College vote all pass laws that they will give their electors to the winner of the national popular vote, insuring the victory of the popular vote winner. It's actually surprisingly close to becoming a reality. As the Wikipedia article shows, 36% of electoral votes have already signed on, and several additional states have legislation in-process and if most or all of them pass it the 51% threshold would be passed.

The small states already get a huge boost in power and influence in the Senate, that compromise is plenty to satisfy the concerns of "the tyranny of the majority", in my opinion.

Those same people would love the EC if Trump won the popular vote but lost the EC.
I think when a nationwide election goes against a state's tally that some or most in that compact will renege.
The Senate is not the presidency.

 

[R Cameron]

Those same people would love the EC if Trump won the popular vote but lost the EC.

The Republicans have only won ONE popular vote in the past 3+ decades, 8 elections (Bush '04). This is a very one-sided problem.

 

[centurion]

The republicans simply have more states(and physical territory), which is why they need fewer popular votes. If the election would be by a popular vote, California and the East Coast would choose the president and rule over the vast territories and states of the whole country.

Indonesia on the opposite is a unitary state. 7% of territory inhabited by 52% of the population is ruling the remaining 93% of the state, as Java decides the elections. So in Indonesia, a president elected by a popular vote will be forever Javanese, a Muslim, a man, till the end of times.

 

[Hawk256]

The republicans simply have more states(and physical territory), which is why they need fewer popular votes. If the election would be by a popular vote, California and the East Coast would choose the president and rule over the vast territories and states of the whole country.

Exactly why the US is a Republic and not fully Democratic. It would have been hard to get states to join your union unless they did this way. An important thing to remember also is that before the Civil War, US Nationalism wasn't a big thing. You were Virginian (for example) first and then an American second (and a far second at that). Only after the Civil War was there really any interest in a more centralized and larger federal government.

The weight of the current federal government was never the intention of the founding fathers. A different look at the US would be beneficial to see how it was originally envisioned. Think of the EU as the US and each EU country as a state in the US. This is much closer to how things were originally planned to work. Still not a perfect match but much closer than the modern view of US and State relations.

 

[Bob]

The Republicans have only won ONE popular vote in the past 3+ decades, 8 elections (Bush '04). This is a very one-sided problem.

In the long term it's a two sided issue. Relative party popularity ebbs and flows.
If the Republicans can rid themselves of the fringe lunatics and move strongly toward the center, they can prosper considering the current state of the Democratic Party.

 

[Vanuatu]

The republicans simply have more states(and physical territory), which is why they need fewer popular votes. If the election would be by a popular vote, California and the East Coast would choose the president and rule over the vast territories and states of the whole country.

Indonesia on the opposite is a unitary state. 7% of territory inhabited by 52% of the population is ruling the remaining 93% of the state, as Java decides the elections. So in Indonesia, a president elected by a popular vote will be forever Javanese, a Muslim, a man, till the end of times.

I've heard this many times before: "if we move to a popular vote California and New York will choose the president", but that is simply not true. Both states have a diverse population and will vote accordingly, and yes they will have a larger percentage of votes going to candidates then smaller states, but each individual person's vote will count only as 1 vote, equal to a person from Hawaii, North Dakota, Montana etc... Every person that votes will know that their vote counts. The EC is an outdated system that I believe should be scrapped. Here is an interesting article for those unfamiliar with the EC: https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention

 

[El_Goretto]

How come nobody has talked about the farce that is gerrymandering yet?

 

[Hawk256]

How come nobody has talked about the farce that is gerrymandering yet?

The only time I hear about gerrymandering is when the Democrats still lose. Seriously, both parties have been guilty of it and nobody has proposed a solution that both parties can agree on. Both parties fight tooth and nail for any perceived advantage. No matter where you draw the line, someone will disagree.

 

[R Cameron]

If the Republicans can rid themselves of the fringe lunatics and move strongly toward the center, they can prosper considering the current state of the Democratic Party.

And which system encourages them to do that, move to center? A popular vote. The electoral college encourages them to spend minimal effort shoring up their defenses in 'Red' states, ignore completely the many millions of Republicans, independents, and more center Democrats in 'Blue' states, and spend massive effort appealing to a tiny minority of the country which is the swing votes in the swing states.

 

[Bob]

And which system encourages them to do that, move to center? A popular vote. The electoral college encourages them to spend minimal effort shoring up their defenses in 'Red' states, ignore completely the many millions of Republicans, independents, and more center Democrats in 'Blue' states, and spend massive effort appealing to a tiny minority of the country which is the swing votes in the swing states.

If they shift to the center they'll win the purple and some blue states and keep the red ones, with the EC as is.

 

[R Cameron]

How come nobody has talked about the farce that is gerrymandering yet?

Because the conversation has been almost entirely focused on the US Presidential elections, in which gerrymandering is mostly irrelevant. Almost every state uses a statewide popular vote to assign their electors, so in essence the state lines are the districts, and state lines are unlikely to be redrawn.

 

[Samoerai]

A simple solution ... stop being united. Every state independent, like in Europe.

 

[Hawk256]

A simple solution ... stop being united. Every state independent, like in Europe.

Can't do that. Since the Civil War and Supreme Court decision (Texas v. White) no state can leave the Union. As much as people like to support independence, that sentiment doesn't seem to apply once you join the US.

 

[fastpitch17]

There is the far right and the far left. Eliminate them and someother dividing factor enters the room. These 2 parties are both as guilty of the other for being alk for the party and screw anyone who disagrees and tries to get in the way. There will never be a solution outside of a total redesign if the US government and that, because of the divide will never happen.

This divide isn't new. It didn't come with trump even though he handed out lollypops and permission slips to make matters worse. No, it has been going in for a long time and just keeps getting worse. There is no fix in sight. I can inly see things getting even worse and it won't matter who is in charge. It would probably improve a bit if trump was removed from the picture. Not enough to make it a workíng government.

 

[ChrisTex]

Can't do that. Since the Civil War and Supreme Court decision (Texas v. White) no state can leave the Union. As much as people like to support independence, that sentiment doesn't seem to apply once you join the US.

Tell that to the TNM. Join Texit.

 

[Bob]

There is the far right and the far left. Eliminate them and someother dividing factor enters the room. These 2 parties are both as guilty of the other for being alk for the party and screw anyone who disagrees and tries to get in the way. There will never be a solution outside of a total redesign if the US government and that, because of the divide will never happen.

This divide isn't new. It didn't come with trump even though he handed out lollypops and permission slips to make matters worse. No, it has been going in for a long time and just keeps getting worse. There is no fix in sight. I can inly see things getting even worse and it won't matter who is in charge. It would probably improve a bit if trump was removed from the picture. Not enough to make it a workíng government.

It's normal that people and parties have different ideas about the best direction to take, but as you allude to the current level of pettiness and dysfunction is really detrimental to the country.
I would be surprised if there's not a strong movement soon toward a centrist / reformist third party.

 

[Hawk256]

Tell that to the TNM. Join Texit.

If you research the topic at length, there are possibly some loopholes that could be explioted but for the most part leaving is practically impossible in practice. Never say never though.

 

[fastpitch17]

If anyone were to leave the Union California would probably first in line. All leaning towards the far right would cheer and encourage them to do so. Then, reality hits after losing the 5th highest economy in the world.

 

[Hawk256]

If anyone were to leave the Union California would probably first in line. All leaning towards the far right would cheer and encourage them to do so. Then, reality hits after losing the 5th highest economy in the world.

You have a point but California spends all of it's money on welfare programs anyway. Probably not a huge loss after all the math is done.

No other state comes close to California in terms of total welfare spending

California, with its suffocating cost of living and huge population, is home to an inordinate number of households receiving public assistance. In fact, with...

www.marketwatch.com