Is the Electoral College Doomed?

[RedDenver]

7 hours ago, Big Red 40 said:

That isn’t going to change either of the things I mentioned though . Not really sure how thats going to fix anything, or really make any difference at all . Having “electors” decide the outcome instead of having every vote count the same is still a bad system  constitution or not . Imo

It fixes a giant part of the problem of the opposing vote not counting.

[zoogs]

I really think we should just have a popular vote determine the Presidency. 

 

The federal government has become so strong -- yes, we have elements of federalism but we're much more than a band of independent states. There's considerable latitude given to local governance and different states can pursue very different agendas. But the office of the executive has for a long time set the tone for national-level politics. There currently exists no other means for the will of the people of America as a whole to be expressed. Why not through the Presidency? It would be the best check we have against the state-controlled gerrymandering of the House. And it would reflect the reality of what our Presidential campaigns are.

Edited February 23, 2018 by zoogs

[Moiraine]

Letting states allocate votes the way Nebraska does is a baaaaaad idea.

 

There are better ways to do it that don't let state senators water down the Hispanic and Black vote for their party's benefit.

 

It can be used to gain votes a party's nominee shouldn't have, and also to take away votes from the opposing party's nominee.

 

Imagine you've got a bunch of states doing it a fair way, and a bunch of other states overload their numbers toward one party another. It would give us the same nightmare we have with the House.

 

The popular vote is the obvious way to do it. The electoral vote is a distant 2nd unless they find a fix for gerrymandering.

Edited February 23, 2018 by Moiraine

[Big Red 40]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

It fixes a giant part of the problem of the opposing vote not counting.

How so? 

[RedDenver]

2 minutes ago, Big Red 40 said:

How so? 

Because the electors will be assign by the popular vote of each state. So if Nebraska has 2/3 of the votes for Republicans and 1/3 for Democrats, then 2 electors for the Republicans and 1 elector for the Democrats will come from Nebraska.

 

35 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

Letting states allocate votes the way Nebraska does is a baaaaaad idea.

 

There are better ways to do it that don't let state senators water down the Hispanic and Black vote for their party's benefit.

 

It can be used to gain votes a party's nominee shouldn't have, and also to take away votes from the opposing party's nominee.

 

Imagine you've got a bunch of states doing it a fair way, and a bunch of other states overload their numbers toward one party another. It would give us the same nightmare we have with the House.

 

The popular vote is the obvious way to do it. The electoral vote is a distant 2nd unless they find a fix for gerrymandering.

I answered already in the other thread that assigning electors based on each state's popular vote can't be gerrymandered in any way that I can see. Unless you think they'll be able to change the state lines, which I don't think is remotely plausible.

[Moiraine]

33 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Because the electors will be assign by the popular vote of each state. So if Nebraska has 2/3 of the votes for Republicans and 1/3 for Democrats, then 2 electors for the Republicans and 1 elector for the Democrats will come from Nebraska.

 

I answered already in the other thread that assigning electors based on each state's popular vote can't be gerrymandered in any way that I can see. Unless you think they'll be able to change the state lines, which I don't think is remotely plausible.

 

 

And I explained in both posts that wasn't what I was talking about.

 

In your first post you mentioned the way Nebraska does it. My response saying it would be bad is based on the way Nebraska does it. Nebraska doesn't base it on the popular vote. I already stated that I think doing it proportional to the popular vote would be fine. (I said the exact thing you're saying above. If R win 2/3 of the vote in a state they get 2 electoral votes)

Edited February 23, 2018 by Moiraine

[RedDenver]

33 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

And I explained in both posts that wasn't what I was talking about.

 

In your first post you mentioned the way Nebraska does it. My response saying it would be bad is based on the way Nebraska does it. Nebraska doesn't base it on the popular vote. I already stated that I think doing it proportional to the popular vote would be fine. (I said the exact thing you're saying above. If R win 2/3 of the vote in a state they get 2 electoral votes)

We're talking past each other as you're talking about how Nebraska does it and I'm talking about the lawsuits which would result in proportional electors by state.

[Moiraine]

16 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

We're talking past each other as you're talking about how Nebraska does it and I'm talking about the lawsuits which would result in proportional electors by state.

 

I realize we're probably in agreement, but I replied due to what you said here:
 

Quote

Maine and Nebraska already have proportional electors in the electoral college.

 

Nebraska's is divided into regions proportional to the population, and what you think is a good idea is for it to be proportional to the vote. Which I agree with.

Edited February 24, 2018 by Moiraine

[zoogs]

I think what you’d really have to do is weigh the proportion of each state’s elector share relative to its population.

[jsneb83]

2 hours ago, RedDenver said:

Because the electors will be assign by the popular vote of each state. So if Nebraska has 2/3 of the votes for Republicans and 1/3 for Democrats, then 2 electors for the Republicans and 1 elector for the Democrats will come from Nebraska.

 

What about the other 2 electors?

[jsneb83]

3 hours ago, RedDenver said:

It fixes a giant part of the problem of the opposing vote not counting.

Not to mention all the votes that aren't even cast because they already know who their state is voting for.

[zoogs]

If 60% of Nebraska votes Republican and 40% vote Democrat then the split should be 3-2 in the new proposal. Question: what if it's 69-31? 71-29? When does it swing over to 4-1? 

 

Maybe if we got rid of the two electors meant to artificially increase the weight of the numerous, mostly red-leaning small states ... but again, how does the rounding work? Multiplied fifty times over, it gets to be significant, and again especially in the smaller states.

 

If you're going to try to approximate the popular vote, then larger electoral margins shrink towards comparatively narrower popular vote margins, where a 4% national victory is a pretty darn big deal but would be close in electoral college numbers). Then the road is still to 270 but we have 51 different electoral votes going one way or another because of rounding, because we artificially "can't" have fractional electors? That sounds like a mess.

Edited February 24, 2018 by zoogs

[Moiraine]

Ya, they'd have to make rules for that. It would still be annoying. Popular vote is way better.

[Big Red 40]

4 hours ago, jsneb83 said:

Not to mention all the votes that aren't even cast because they already know who their state is voting for.

Sadly i'll admit i've even skipped voting in an election because, as a  democrat living in a predominately red state, i felt my vote really didn't matter.

I think with a popular vote system, voter turnout would be much higher because of that feeling alone.

Whether high voter turnout favors the left or the right, is a whole different debate, but i think more people exercising their voting rights is a good thing either way. 

[B.B. Hemingway]

12 hours ago, Moiraine said:

Popular vote is way better.

 

So candidates could focus their campaigns almost completely on densely populated areas (liberal areas), while all but completely ignoring rural areas, and what government action might benefit them?

I'd prefer the election not be decided by a handful of like-minded U.S. cities. It benefits the process that  every corner of America is represented fairly. On the  surface, it's easy to agree with you, but the founding fathers had this one right.... In my opinion of course.

Edited February 24, 2018 by B.B. Hemingway