History of the electoral college READ....

[ReptilianPeon]

Surely any system with two parties who won't work to earn people's votes and that rely on the fear of the other party isn't democratic? If the only realistic option for so many people was to vote for Hilary, how is that democracy? If there is only one candidate is worth voting for each presidential election then the US might as well be a dictatorship.

I say get rid of "winner takes", have a proportional system and get rid of the electoral college. Would make the big parties work harder for votes. Also get money out of politics; stop politicians from being owned by big money interests. I bet al-Saud is so butthurt that Hilary didn't win.

[Mister Agenda]

Everyone condemns the electoral college without understanding it. It is simply one check on power among many. Without it we could have mob rule by vote.

1) The electoral college is still mob rule by vote, it's just that some people's votes are worth more than others.

2) "Mob rule" by vote would have elected Clinton this time around.

I completely understand the electoral college. I understand it enough to know it's a horrible system to elect a national president. People can rant about how smaller states need more say, but why? The people from those smaller states make up a fraction of the US population, and you are voting for a president of the entire nation, not just that state. If you want to fairly represent the entire nation, there's a simple way to do that: popular vote.

For one thing, the people in those less densely populated states control much of our food supply and other natural resources. Giving them less of a say than they already have is likely to inspire them to take other measures to get us to listen to them. We're already conspiring to take away one of the few civic tools they have to get our attention, in order to avoid having to take them into consideration. Would it really kill us to try to address their economic concerns?

[GUBU]

1) The electoral college is still mob rule by vote, it's just that some people's votes are worth more than others.

2) "Mob rule" by vote would have elected Clinton this time around.

I completely understand the electoral college. I understand it enough to know it's a horrible system to elect a national president. People can rant about how smaller states need more say, but why? The people from those smaller states make up a fraction of the US population, and you are voting for a president of the entire nation, not just that state. If you want to fairly represent the entire nation, there's a simple way to do that: popular vote.

For one thing, the people in those less densely populated states control much of our food supply and other natural resources. Giving them less of a say than they already have is likely to inspire them to take other measures to get us to listen to them. We're already conspiring to take away one of the few civic tools they have to get our attention, in order to avoid having to take them into consideration. Would it really kill us to try to address their economic concerns?

So you'd be ok with an open dictatorship then?

Oh and if you want to secure your food supply, shop as directly from the source that you can and pay a fair price.

[Tiberius]

For one thing, the people in those less densely populated states control much of our food supply and other natural resources. Giving them less of a say than they already have is likely to inspire them to take other measures to get us to listen to them. We're already conspiring to take away one of the few civic tools they have to get our attention, in order to avoid having to take them into consideration. Would it really kill us to try to address their economic concerns?

The problem with this argument I see is that given we know that these people control much of our food supply and other natural resources, they already have our attention. A president who ignores their needs is going to face a crisis. I think a President should be focused on the entire nation, and that includes all people who keep everything running.

I don't think taking away their enhanced vote is a way of avoiding taking them into consideration; rather, it's a way to ensure that the views of the entire nation are taken into consideration. That is what should happen when voting for a President of the USA. We aren't voting for a President of farmers, or miners, we're voting for a President of the entire nation.

People seem to be forgetting that these people already have state representatives and district representatives in Congress. It it *their* job to represent their views in government, not the President's.

[Cato]

The fact of the matter is that changing Article II Section 1 to allow for a popular vote would require a Constitutional Amendment. An amendment of this sort would be dead on arrival knowing that a vast majority of the states will lose its share of representational voting for POTUS. 

An election strictly based on popular vote would concentrate all the electoral power in 11 or so of the most populous states, these in turn determined by the their most populated cities. The alienation of entire swaths of people make this scheme untenable. 

I prefer apportioning electoral votes rather than the 'winner take all' rules in 48 states. I think this would more closely align electoral votes with the popular vote while maintaining the balance of power sought in the original construction of the provision. Each state has the power to enact this scheme without the need for a Constitutional Amendment.

[Tiberius]

An election strictly based on popular vote would concentrate all the electoral power in 11 or so of the most populous states, these in turn determined by the their most populated cities. The alienation of entire swaths of people make this scheme untenable.

It wouldn't though, because states do not vote the same way, and it wouldn't be states voting, it would be people. It shouldn't matter where you live, your vote for President should count as much as anyone else's.

For the "alienation of entire swaths of people" to be an issue, you first have to explain why you think these people should get more of a vote than anyone else. What legitimate reason do rural people have for their vote counting more than urban people, for the President of the United States. Are urban people not citizens of the same country? Why do they get a reduced voting power simply because they live in a populated area?

Besides, the electoral college cares not about where people live, just the size of the state. A state could literally have a tiny population, but 99% of that population live in one big urban area, and those urbanites would have more powerful votes than people living in highly populated states with plenty of rural areas.

The whole "urban vs rural" argument just doesn't make any sense to me.

I prefer apportioning electoral votes rather than the 'winner take all' rules in 48 states. I think this would more closely align electoral votes with the popular vote while maintaining the balance of power sought in the original construction of the provision. Each state has the power to enact this scheme without the need for a Constitutional Amendment.

That would be better, but you still have the problem of giving smaller states more power for no good reason.

[Kingpin]

Everyone condemns the electoral college without understanding it. It is simply one check on power among many. Without it we could have mob rule by vote.

1) The electoral college is still mob rule by vote, it's just that some people's votes are worth more than others.

2) "Mob rule" by vote would have elected Clinton this time around.

I completely understand the electoral college. I understand it enough to know it's a horrible system to elect a national president. People can rant about how smaller states need more say, but why? The people from those smaller states make up a fraction of the US population, and you are voting for a president of the entire nation, not just that state. If you want to fairly represent the entire nation, there's a simple way to do that: popular vote.

Yes cannot emphasize this enough.  Think of non major election years, when we elect our state senators or governors, representatives, millages etc.  All by majority rule.  However the electoral college removes political equality and values some people votes more than others.  Votes in swing states are worth far more than those in say Arkansas and Alabama.  For everyone's vote to truly "count", popular vote is the only way.

[Tiberius]

Yes cannot emphasize this enough.  Think of non major election years, when we elect our state senators or governors, representatives, millages etc.  All by majority rule.  However the electoral college removes political equality and values some people votes more than others.  Votes in swing states are worth far more than those in say Arkansas and Alabama.  For everyone's vote to truly "count", popular vote is the only way.

That's actually a great point about swing states. A person's vote in California is less powerful not just because their vote is worth less electoral college votes than a person from Wyoming, but also because the chance of it tipping the election is practically nothing. "Safe" states effectively mean that the votes of millions of people are ignored and not counted. Over 3 million people in California voted Republican, but their votes don't count for anything, because the Democrats won and therefore get all the electoral college votes for California. Likewise, almost 4 million people in Texas voted Democrat, and their votes don't count for anything either.

At least in a nationwide popular vote, everyone's votes get counted for something.

A system like AV or range voting would make their vote count even more, but baby steps...

[Catholic_Lady]

I can see both sides- Brian's and Tib's. I'm not well versed enough on this to have an opinion either way though. But I see where you both are coming from.

[TaraJo]

Pretty much all my talking points can be summed up here:  




To give a cliff notes version:
1)  Votes from less populated states like Wyoming or Alaska wind up counting for a lot more than votes from California or Texas.  This is because of the electoral college.
2)  The election has multiple times resulted in the candidate with fewer vote winning the election.  That isn't exactly how a democracy works.  In fact, it's possible to win an election with less than a third of the popular vote.
3)  Candidates don't focus more on less populated areas because of the electoral college; they ignore all states except a few battle ground states.  Seriously, over the last couple of months of the election, did you see either candidate visit any one of the three most populated states (California, Texas and New York)?  They just focus on Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and a few other states that are going to be close.