(June 29, 2018 at 1:22 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote:

(June 29, 2018 at 12:34 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: And I think that you need to discuss the reasons for a change.

I'm not saying that abolishing the electoral college would be a blanket good for the nation because it brings up the problem of the tyranny of the majority.  Those impulses would need to be checked so that minorities remain protected, be they atheists, religious minorities, racial and ethnic minorities, LGBT minorities, etc.

HOWEVER

The main problem that I have with the electoral college is the fact that some citizens are over represented and others are under represented.  For example, California has a population of 39.5 million and 55 electoral votes meaning each electoral vote represents 718,181 people.  In South Dakota, with 3 electoral votes and a population of 870,000, each electoral vote represents 290,000 people.  If every state had that many people per EV, California would have 136 electoral votes.

This country does not have equal representation either in our elected officials or in our electoral college which violates one of the core ideals upon which this country was founded: that all men are created equal.  Well, if we're really equal, then give us all equal representation.

(June 29, 2018 at 12:36 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote: Doesn't the principles still apply even without the issue of slavery though?   It's possibly a corollary explanation, but not a necessary one.  The reason is because they had less eligible voters,the "why" is secondary.   It doesn't make it a racist system.  The same reasoning still holds today, and nobody owns slaves.  And as you said, it is a compromise.  Areas with higher populations do have more electoral votes, and regions of the country with lower populations can't just be ignored.  Perhaps we can improve it, but I think that you will still need a compromise and popular vote is not necessarily better.

I only ever talked about a "compromise" in the context of the Three-Fifths compromise.

And it is true to say that we no longer have slaves.

It is also true to say that we have unequal representation in our government and that is ultimately the reason I would wish to abolish the electoral college.  I agree that areas of the country with lower populations shouldn't just be ignored, but neither should they have disproportionate power to influence our elections.

Everyone talks about one person one vote but that's not what we have.  We have, in California, 718,000 people one vote.  In South Dakota, 290,000 people one vote.  In Arizona, 639,000 people one vote.  In Wyoming, 139,000 people one vote. In New York, 683,000 people one vote. In Florida, which has the same number of electoral votes as New York, it's 723,600 people one vote.

That's crap.

You are only looking at it from one side.  Should a couple of states have all the power to decide for everyone else.   That's not equal either.  And as you point out, California has more votes than Alabama, perhaps it should be one state one vote?  Equality Right... each state has equal say!  What the electoral college does is make a compromise where more power is given to areas of lower populations, so that they have a say as well (and can't just be ignored).  There are a number of states that still have an overwhelming amount of power when it comes to the elections.  And this is because they do have larger populations.  

One person one vote, is true, and every vote is counted.   However just not in the way that you would like.  What you say is equal in one way is disproportionate in another way and you have to deal with both sides of that.  The office of President is responsible for the whole country, not just those areas with high population densities.  This doesn't mean that all men are not equal.  And the idea is not about giving some more power than others anymore than it is a racist system.  Those you you say have a disproportionate amount of power, still have less power than those who you say are being treated unfairly.  This country has always been about giving a voice to those who would not otherwise have it, in a simple majority system.  

While I think that the system may have room for improvement, I don't think that arguing "it's not a majority vote" is assessing all sides of the matter or making a case that it's better.  It's not meant to be a simple majority and there is wisdom and reasons why it is not.

(June 29, 2018 at 1:55 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: You are only looking at it from one side.  Should a couple of states have all the power to decide for everyone else.   That's not equal either. 

How is that not equal? Votes are supposed to represent people, not empty farm land.

(June 29, 2018 at 2:09 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(June 29, 2018 at 1:55 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: You are only looking at it from one side.  Should a couple of states have all the power to decide for everyone else.   That's not equal either. 

How is that not equal?  Votes are supposed to represent people, not empty farm land.

The votes do represent individuals , and then that is used to represent different areas of the country.   The President doesn't just represent individuals but a whole nation.  In Congress you see a mix of this, where in the Senate each state has equal footing, whereas they are not equal in the House, but reflect populations.

(June 29, 2018 at 2:19 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(June 29, 2018 at 2:09 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: How is that not equal?  Votes are supposed to represent people, not empty farm land.

The votes do represent individuals , and then that is used to represent different areas of the country.   The President doesn't just represent individuals but a whole nation.  In Congress you see a mix of this, where in the Senate each state has equal footing, whereas they are not equal in the House, but reflect populations.

Not sure you're making any kind of point here. That we do treat vastly different populations the same dependent on statehood in the senate is not a good argument that we should do so when electing a president.

When it comes to presidential elections, I favor an overhaul of the system that would do away with this ridiculous winner-take-all approach to a state's electoral votes. If we must maintain a vestige of the electoral college, then require that each state's electoral votes are awarded proportionately to the candidates based on their total of that state's popular vote.

At the least, it might motivate people who are perpetual political minorities in red or blue states to get off their asses and cast a ballot. It would also ensure that candidates would take states for granted at their peril.

(June 28, 2018 at 5:19 pm)Joods Wrote:

(June 28, 2018 at 4:07 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: It seems to me, that it works like it was suppose to.

I don't agree.

Roadrunner's right (I suddenly feel so very very dirty). The electoral college was designed, like the senate, to break to the rich and powerful when their views when it disagreed with the will of the people. By annointing Drumpfuck when the US people voted Hilary Clinton, the ec was doing its designated job.

For all their supposed "brilliance" the Founding Fathers were far more concerned with maintaining the status quo - with them on top of the pyramid.  Many spoke openly against democracy.

https://www.ranker.com/list/founding-fat...sa-sartore

Quote:12 Surprising Anti-Democracy Quotes From America's Founding Fathers

(June 29, 2018 at 2:46 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(June 29, 2018 at 2:19 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: The votes do represent individuals , and then that is used to represent different areas of the country.   The President doesn't just represent individuals but a whole nation.  In Congress you see a mix of this, where in the Senate each state has equal footing, whereas they are not equal in the House, but reflect populations.

Not sure you're making any kind of point here.  That we do treat vastly different populations the same dependent on statehood in the senate is not a good argument that we should do so when electing a president.

I'm not saying that it should be like the senate, or that each state should have one vote; or anything like that.   You may note, that I also mentioned the house of representatives, and that the electoral college is a mix of these two ideologies.  As I think about it;  I believe that the word "representative" may not be the correct word to use, as what is being talked about is electing the head of state, not a representative for legislation.   The argument is that the interests of that head of state, should not be on the individuals, but on what is best for the country as a whole.  Do you not think that this is a good idea?

(July 2, 2018 at 7:57 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(June 29, 2018 at 2:46 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Not sure you're making any kind of point here.  That we do treat vastly different populations the same dependent on statehood in the senate is not a good argument that we should do so when electing a president.

I'm not saying that it should be like the senate, or that each state should have one vote; or anything like that.   You may note, that I also mentioned the house of representatives, and that the electoral college is a mix of these two ideologies.  As I think about it;  I believe that the word "representative" may not be the correct word to use, as what is being talked about is electing the head of state, not a representative for legislation.   The argument is that the interests of that head of state, should not be on the individuals, but on what is best for the country as a whole.  Do you not think that this is a good idea?

Are you differentiating between the interests of the country as a whole and the interests of its individuals?  If so, I'd have to ask what you mean by the former, and why it should be privileged over the latter?   How does the representative being elected change what we consider to be the relevant interests?  You seem to have simply reasserted your prior position using different language without actually justifying it.  If, as you seem to be suggesting, empty farmland has as much interest in who leads the country as its people do, then I'd have to say I don't find your position at all persuasive.  The only reason empty farmland has interests derives from the fact that its fate is of interest to the people who own that farmland.  Even by your own argument, ultimately it comes down to the interests of the people, not some mysterious proxy which you somehow equate as "the country as a whole."  You don't appear to have an argument.  

I don't know offhand whether states rights and representation biased towards states rather than populations favors Republicans, but I'd be rather suspicious of your argument if it does.  The election of Trump in spite of him having fewer individuals vote for him than Clinton seems to confirm my suspicions, at least as far as this last election is concerned.   The last time before this that the majority vote lost the election it was also a Republican, George W. Bush.  Given your inability to clearly articulate a justification for your position, I have to say that my suspicions have been aroused.

Quote:Right now, there are somewhat more Democratic voters overall. This has actually been true for a long time, and while the numbers of self-identified Republicans and Democrats have both been falling, Democrats still have a numerical edge, which is slightly larger when independents who “lean” toward one party or another are factored in: Democratic, Republican Identification Near Historical Lows.

But increasingly, Democratic voters live in large urban areas, and are concentrated in several parts of the country. There are more of them, somewhat, but they live in relatively compact geographic areas. This gives Republicans a mild advantage in the electoral college; Republican voters are more spread out, and the Electoral College system potentially over-represents them slightly as a part of the overall population. This is, as I said, slight; it does not mean that Democrats cannot win the electoral college, or that Republicans are always more likely to do so. All it means is this: in the event that circumstances line up just right so there is a split between the popular and electoral votes, the split is, for the moment, likely to favor Republicans.

Newsweek: Quora Question: Does the Electoral College Favor Republicans?

(July 2, 2018 at 8:15 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(July 2, 2018 at 7:57 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I'm not saying that it should be like the senate, or that each state should have one vote; or anything like that.   You may note, that I also mentioned the house of representatives, and that the electoral college is a mix of these two ideologies.  As I think about it;  I believe that the word "representative" may not be the correct word to use, as what is being talked about is electing the head of state, not a representative for legislation.   The argument is that the interests of that head of state, should not be on the individuals, but on what is best for the country as a whole.  Do you not think that this is a good idea?

Are you differentiating between the interests of the country as a whole and the interests of its individuals?  If so, I'd have to ask what you mean by the former, and why it should be privileged over the latter?   How does the representative being elected change what we consider to be the relevant interests?  You seem to have simply reasserted your prior position using different language without actually justifying it.  If, as you seem to be suggesting, empty farmland has as much interest in who leads the country as its people do, then I'd have to say I don't find your position at all persuasive.  The only reason empty farmland has interests derives from the fact that its fate is of interest to the people who own that farmland.  Even by your own argument, ultimately it comes down to the interests of the people, not some mysterious proxy which you somehow equate as "the country as a whole."  You don't appear to have an argument.  

I don't know offhand whether states rights and representation biased towards states rather than populations favors Republicans, but I'd be rather suspicious of your argument if it does.  The election of Trump in spite of him having fewer individuals vote for him than Clinton seems to confirm my suspicions, at least as far as this last election is concerned.   The last time before this that the majority vote lost the election it was also a Republican, George W. Bush.  Given your inability to clearly articulate a justification for your position, I have to say that my suspicions have been aroused.

I'm not sure what you believe I'm being unclear on.  And while I may concede empty farmland (doesn't get a vote), running farms however have people and interests which I think should be included in the priorities of the head of state.  Even in the current electoral college system, It is difficult for the lower population areas to overcome the big cities.  It only comes into play when the votes are close anyway.  I think that you are playing dumb, when you try talk about a proxy "Country as a whole" and empty farmland.  It's empty rhetoric, to diverge from the idea at hand.

It's also not about which side wins.  The parties could change, and the system could favor the other side in these cases.  This seems to be more of a concern for you, than it is for me, and ignores the ideology behind it.  That you don't even see why there is an electoral college in the first place, or seemly understand that there is an argument to begin with, makes me think that you aren't in a position to argue at all.  Or perhaps this is just a tactic of polemics.