New York Times calls for the end of Electoral College

[Phil Skayhan]

Hawaii used said power in the 1960 election to put Kenedy in power. It was very similar to the 2000 election

Except Kennedy would have won without Hawaii. Read about it here

Interesting factoid, though.

[Iceberg]

Of course. No state government wants to give up power.

So why are you circle jerking yourself over abolishing the EC?

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know there was a law against lobbying for necessary albeit unlikely reform.

[Keevan_Colton]

Lets make this very very very clear.

With your system Patrick, winning 51% of the vote in alaska and 51% in vermont. Would be worth more than 75% of the vote in california....that means you have the support of about 600k people compared to over 24 million, yet those 600k votes are worth MORE.

The votes of those people in the less populous states become worth more while those in the more populous states become worth less.

That is the problem we already have with the small swing states and the like, your idea only makes it a worse problem rather than fixing it in any way shape or form.

[haas mark]

Patrick, your proposed system still gives hugely disproportional power to small states in an even worse fashion than the current system does. It is yet another of the ever ready series of kludges I see offered for the US system when flaws are pointed out. A "solution" that does something yet does not actually address the fundamental flaw.

How? The necessity of winning 26 state elections means winning both big- and small-populous states. And since every state is in play under this proposal, it would not be possible for a candidate to ignore states from either category.

But why so insistent that we take votes that way at all? The government is supposed to be representing the people, not the other way around. As it stands with the way you are looking at it, the government has more power than the people to do as it pleases with the presidential candidates. My point is this: a popular vote would elect the president that the people feel would best represent them, as a majority. However, with either the electoral college or this 'system' that you are proposing, the governmental officials basically appoint the president, as popular votes within each state, which is the built-in flaw that Keevan is speaking of, and thus does not represent the majority of the US populus.

Why should it be that the entire population of California is worth the same amount as the population of Arkansas for example. Your idea just magnifies the disparity as there is no longer even a pretence of equality in the value of a persons vote by continuing a system of winner takes all blocks of "votes".

Because small states are supposed to have an equal share of representation and power in the American Federal system as the large states enjoy; elsewise the country is dominated by only a very small handful of states with the largest populations within them and the smaller states are effectively shut out of the political process. This is the entire reason why the Senate exists in the first place and for part of the theory underlining the Electoral College.

Can you explain that part about the EC a little further?

People keep suggesting that the winner takes all system for the EC should be altered to give proportional votes based on results. This however is yet another kludge, if you do this, you have a popular vote...with built in averaging errors. You will get the same result except in close elections, where the averaging error will distort the results. What is so abhorent about the notion that every citizen of the united states should be valued equally in their input as to who should be their president?

Presumably you advocate a nationwide direct popular vote for the presidency. Unfortunately, under such a system, the votes from small-population states except in very close presidential contests wouldn't count for dick in practical terms. Elections would be decided essentially by the east and west coast megalopolises, the Great Lakes megalopolis, and the cities of Atlanta, St. Louis, Houston and Dallas. In other words, those areas with the largest population clusters. The rest of the country might as well not even vote. If the concern is that every vote is valued equally, a system where the electoral power is effectively concentrated almost exclusively in large urban centres is not the way to achieve this result.

So why is it so necessary to have the states' votes?

[Patrick Degan]

Patrick, your proposed system still gives hugely disproportional power to small states in an even worse fashion than the current system does. It is yet another of the ever ready series of kludges I see offered for the US system when flaws are pointed out. A "solution" that does something yet does not actually address the fundamental flaw.

How? The necessity of winning 26 state elections means winning both big- and small-populous states. And since every state is in play under this proposal, it would not be possible for a candidate to ignore states from either category.

But why so insistent that we take votes that way at all? The government is supposed to be representing the people, not the other way around. As it stands with the way you are looking at it, the government has more power than the people to do as it pleases with the presidential candidates. My point is this: a popular vote would elect the president that the people feel would best represent them, as a majority. However, with either the electoral college or this 'system' that you are proposing, the governmental officials basically appoint the president, as popular votes within each state, which is the built-in flaw that Keevan is speaking of, and thus does not represent the majority of the US populus.

I don't know where you are deriving that interpretation of my argument; certainly not in the actual text of it because it is exactly nowhere in any sentence. The elections in each state would be a direct popular vote in each state. This is not a difficult formulation to work out. Having the Senate fulfilling its constitutional role to determine whether the vote from each state is properly verified and that the required majority of states exists is not having "governmental officials basically appointing the president", that is refereeing the contest; nor is that the interpretation of the House of Representatives deciding a disputed election where the requisite majority has not been achieved since the House represents the people, being directly elected by them.

Why should it be that the entire population of California is worth the same amount as the population of Arkansas for example. Your idea just magnifies the disparity as there is no longer even a pretence of equality in the value of a persons vote by continuing a system of winner takes all blocks of "votes".

Because small states are supposed to have an equal share of representation and power in the American Federal system as the large states enjoy; elsewise the country is dominated by only a very small handful of states with the largest populations within them and the smaller states are effectively shut out of the political process. This is the entire reason why the Senate exists in the first place and for part of the theory underlining the Electoral College.

Can you explain that part about the EC a little further?

I should have thought that was self-explanatory; it is how the institution works in the context of the Federal/State balance. The states control the election or appointment of electors, not the Federal government.

People keep suggesting that the winner takes all system for the EC should be altered to give proportional votes based on results. This however is yet another kludge, if you do this, you have a popular vote...with built in averaging errors. You will get the same result except in close elections, where the averaging error will distort the results. What is so abhorent about the notion that every citizen of the united states should be valued equally in their input as to who should be their president?

Presumably you advocate a nationwide direct popular vote for the presidency. Unfortunately, under such a system, the votes from small-population states except in very close presidential contests wouldn't count for dick in practical terms. Elections would be decided essentially by the east and west coast megalopolises, the Great Lakes megalopolis, and the cities of Atlanta, St. Louis, Houston and Dallas. In other words, those areas with the largest population clusters. The rest of the country might as well not even vote. If the concern is that every vote is valued equally, a system where the electoral power is effectively concentrated almost exclusively in large urban centres is not the way to achieve this result.

So why is it so necessary to have the states' votes?

It is not "the states' votes", it is the results of the presidential elections in each state, the results of the popular votes in each state.

[Iceberg]

It is not "the states' votes", it is the results of the presidential elections in each state, the results of the popular votes in each state.

And you're saying that winning Wyoming (493,782 residents) should count as much as winning California (33,871,648 residents) then?

Doesn't sound like a winning combination (pardon the pun) to me.

[haas mark]

But why so insistent that we take votes that way at all? The government is supposed to be representing the people, not the other way around. As it stands with the way you are looking at it, the government has more power than the people to do as it pleases with the presidential candidates. My point is this: a popular vote would elect the president that the people feel would best represent them, as a majority. However, with either the electoral college or this 'system' that you are proposing, the governmental officials basically appoint the president, as popular votes within each state, which is the built-in flaw that Keevan is speaking of, and thus does not represent the majority of the US populus.

I don't know where you are deriving that interpretation of my argument; certainly not in the actual text of it because it is exactly nowhere in any sentence. The elections in each state would be a direct popular vote in each state.

Basically, almost the same as the electoral college, which sways on the government, not the people.

This is not a difficult formulation to work out. Having the Senate fulfilling its constitutional role to determine whether the vote from each state is properly verified and that the required majority of states exists is not having "governmental officials basically appointing the president", that is refereeing the contest; nor is that the interpretation of the House of Representatives deciding a disputed election where the requisite majority has not been achieved since the House represents the people, being directly elected by them.

My fault. But still, it does not represent the total vote of the people. As we have had many technological advances since the institution of the EC, we no longer have to have the EC.

Can you explain that part about the EC a little further?

I should have thought that was self-explanatory; it is how the institution works in the context of the Federal/State balance. The states control the election or appointment of electors, not the Federal government.

Ok, but how does the creation of the Senate have to do with the theory of the EC? That's what I'm not understanding.

So why is it so necessary to have the states' votes?

It is not "the states' votes", it is the results of the presidential elections in each state, the results of the popular votes in each state.

See your first paragraph, please. It is most certainly the states' votes.

[Patrick Degan]

It is not "the states' votes", it is the results of the presidential elections in each state, the results of the popular votes in each state.

And you're saying that winning Wyoming (493,782 residents) should count as much as winning California (33,871,648 residents) then?

Doesn't sound like a winning combination (pardon the pun) to me.

Are you saying that winning Wyoming should never count at all because it doesn't have as big a population as California?

[Keevan_Colton]

Are you saying that winning Wyoming should never count at all because it doesn't have as big a population as California?

A black white fallacy anyone?

[haas mark]

Are you saying that winning Wyoming should never count at all because it doesn't have as big a population as California?

So far as I can tell, he's saying that your 'system' is unfair because there is too much power in too few votes.

[The Kernel]

It is not "the states' votes", it is the results of the presidential elections in each state, the results of the popular votes in each state.

And you're saying that winning Wyoming (493,782 residents) should count as much as winning California (33,871,648 residents) then?

Doesn't sound like a winning combination (pardon the pun) to me.

Are you saying that winning Wyoming should never count at all because it doesn't have as big a population as California?

Oh for fuck's sake, you're not getting this are you? Lesser consideration based on lower population are perfectly fucking justifiable as each individual person deserves to have their vote count for the same thing regardless of geography. The fact that low population states might get overlooked is too bad, but there is no rational justification for giving their voters more value then those from heavily populated states. Are you really suggesting that we penalize people for living closer together simply because you want to protect some perverted definition of state rights?

[Keevan_Colton]

Patrick, under your idea the number of voters works out like this....

California has as many people as the following states added together. roughly :-

Iowa
Mississippi
Kansas
Arkansas
Utah
Nevada
New Mexico
West Virginia
Nebraska
Idaho
Maine
New Hampshire
Hawaii
Rhode Island
Montana
Delaware
South Dakota
North Dakota
Alaska
Vermont
Wyoming

That's 21 states right there...so, under your system, the vote of someone in california is worth less than 1/21th of what it would be if they were spread out over a mixed area.

[Illuminatus Primus]

It is not "the states' votes", it is the results of the presidential elections in each state, the results of the popular votes in each state.

And you're saying that winning Wyoming (493,782 residents) should count as much as winning California (33,871,648 residents) then?

Doesn't sound like a winning combination (pardon the pun) to me.

Are you saying that winning Wyoming should never count at all because it doesn't have as big a population as California?

It should count as much as the number of voters it has warrants! In other words, their citizens should go into the pot just with Californians.

[Iceberg]

It is not "the states' votes", it is the results of the presidential elections in each state, the results of the popular votes in each state.

And you're saying that winning Wyoming (493,782 residents) should count as much as winning California (33,871,648 residents) then?

Doesn't sound like a winning combination (pardon the pun) to me.

Are you saying that winning Wyoming should never count at all because it doesn't have as big a population as California?

Not at all, and if you weren't stuck in a big false dilemma fallacy, you'd realize that.

Although California has as much population as all the three, four, five and six EV states put together, plus Oregon, Oklahoma and Iowa (three of the four seven-vote states), for the equivalent population of 21 states, its electoral representation is only equivalent of the sixteen smallest states (all the three- and four-vote states, West Virginia, Utah and New Mexico).

Thus, California is clearly underrepresented in the Electoral College.

[Patrick Degan]

But why so insistent that we take votes that way at all? The government is supposed to be representing the people, not the other way around. As it stands with the way you are looking at it, the government has more power than the people to do as it pleases with the presidential candidates. My point is this: a popular vote would elect the president that the people feel would best represent them, as a majority. However, with either the electoral college or this 'system' that you are proposing, the governmental officials basically appoint the president, as popular votes within each state, which is the built-in flaw that Keevan is speaking of, and thus does not represent the majority of the US populus.

I don't know where you are deriving that interpretation of my argument; certainly not in the actual text of it because it is exactly nowhere in any sentence. The elections in each state would be a direct popular vote in each state.

Basically, almost the same as the electoral college, which sways on the government, not the people.

It does no such fucking thing. Exactly what part of "a direct popular vote in each state" is eluding your grasp? Does that sound like the national government is controlling the outcome? Unelected officials?

This is not a difficult formulation to work out. Having the Senate fulfilling its constitutional role to determine whether the vote from each state is properly verified and that the required majority of states exists is not having "governmental officials basically appointing the president", that is refereeing the contest; nor is that the interpretation of the House of Representatives deciding a disputed election where the requisite majority has not been achieved since the House represents the people, being directly elected by them.

My fault. But still, it does not represent the total vote of the people. As we have had many technological advances since the institution of the EC, we no longer have to have the EC.

But it is important to maintain the constitutional balance in the relation between the national government and the states, even if the Electoral College is obsolete.

Can you explain that part about the EC a little further?

I should have thought that was self-explanatory; it is how the institution works in the context of the Federal/State balance. The states control the election or appointment of electors, not the Federal government.

Ok, but how does the creation of the Senate have to do with the theory of the EC? That's what I'm not understanding.

Both institutions exist in part for the same reason; to balance out the influence between the national government and the states, and to place the constitutional law as primary. The United States was never intended to be a direct democracy or a single homogenous government with all power invested in that government.

So why is it so necessary to have the states' votes?

It is not "the states' votes", it is the results of the presidential elections in each state, the results of the popular votes in each state.

See your first paragraph, please. It is most certainly the states' votes.

Oh really:

One possible alternative I've thought of is this: replacing the Electoral College with a national election in which the candidates must win a majority of states determined by direct popular vote in each state. In this scheme, a candidate would have to win a presidential election in at least half plus one of all the states in the union; presently that being 26 seperate elections out of 50 held on Election Day. The archaic mechanism of the EC would be eliminated, the popular vote would become the primary determiner in each state, yet the actual election of the President would remain within the power of the several states by necessity of winning multiple votes to gain the majority of states. The House of Representatives would remain available to determine the outcome of a disputed election as it is now if the vote in one or more states cannot be clearly decided. The Senate would remain the judge of the national election; overseeing the results from each state presidential election and determining if the national election should go to the House if one or more state elections remain undecided, with no clear majority vote, and neither candidate gaining a majority of states as a result.

My first paragraph outlining the proposal. Notice the bolded, coloured text.

Now, exactly where in that passage are you finding anything like the state governments deciding the results or the president being appointed by government officials?

Patrick, under your idea the number of voters works out like this....

California has as many people as the following states added together. roughly :-

Iowa
Mississippi
Kansas
Arkansas
Utah
Nevada
New Mexico
West Virginia
Nebraska
Idaho
Maine
New Hampshire
Hawaii
Rhode Island
Montana
Delaware
South Dakota
North Dakota
Alaska
Vermont
Wyoming

That's 21 states right there...so, under your system, the vote of someone in California is worth less than 1/21th of what it would be if they were spread out over a mixed area.

So... let me guess. All of these states would go in a uniform bloc in each and every election, which means the people who would be doing the actual voting would vote the same exact way each and every time election after election after election? Which means that one party could simply write off those 21 states and concentrate exclusively on the remaining 26?

And you're saying that winning Wyoming (493,782 residents) should count as much as winning California (33,871,648 residents) then?

Doesn't sound like a winning combination (pardon the pun) to me.

Are you saying that winning Wyoming should never count at all because it doesn't have as big a population as California?

It should count as much as the number of voters it has warrants! In other words, their citizens should go into the pot just with Californians.

In that case, what's the point of even having seperate states? And what would be the point of anybody from Wyoming voting if their votes would get swamped by the population of a state with 68 times their population?

[Keevan_Colton]

Because of course, every single person in that big state votes for the same person.

You're being an idiot today.

[Iceberg]

Because of course, every single person in that big state votes for the same person.

You're being an idiot today.

Don't you know? Big states aren't populated by people, they're populated by LiberalBots(tm). That's why we still have small states being elevated over large ones, to keep the LiberalBots from overruling the decent, conservative Christian Men(tm).

[The Kernel]

In that case, what's the point of even having seperate states? And what would be the point of anybody from Wyoming voting if their votes would get swamped by the population of a state with 68 times their population?

Oh gee, I forgot that the President has total control over the internal policies of states.

Are you always this fucking dense?

[Keevan_Colton]

Don't you know? Big states aren't populated by people, they're populated by LiberalBots(tm). That's why we still have small states being elevated over large ones, to keep the LiberalBots from overruling the decent, conservative Christian Men(tm).

Tsk tsk, that's what happens when you villify porn...less fucking...less pregnancies...less children....smaller population and you go and get bred out of the democratic process by the damn hippie-commie-liberal-pinko-sex-machines.

[Illuminatus Primus]

This is entirely missing the point; the States do not cast votes, the people do. There's precisely no objective reason to ensure disproportionate attention by Presidential candidates to various States.

Much of the West should be treated as equal to California; it represents that proportion of our citizenry.

[Patrick Degan]

And you're saying that winning Wyoming (493,782 residents) should count as much as winning California (33,871,648 residents) then?

Doesn't sound like a winning combination (pardon the pun) to me.

Are you saying that winning Wyoming should never count at all because it doesn't have as big a population as California?

Not at all, and if you weren't stuck in a big false dilemma fallacy, you'd realize that.

That is not a False Dilemma fallacy, it is pointing out the central flaw of your argument and one which is ignoring the entire reason why the Federal system of this country was constructed as it is.

Although California has as much population as all the three, four, five and six EV states put together, plus Oregon, Oklahoma and Iowa (three of the four seven-vote states), for the equivalent population of 21 states, its electoral representation is only equivalent of the sixteen smallest states (all the three- and four-vote states, West Virginia, Utah and New Mexico).

Thus, California is clearly underrepresented in the Electoral College.

But it wields a disproportionate representation in the Electoral College by virtue of its greater population and representation in Congress. This is why winning California is considered far more important than winning West Virginia, Utah, New Mexico, and all the three- and four-vote states in the EC.

[haas mark]

Basically, almost the same as the electoral college, which sways on the government, not the people.

It does no such fucking thing. Exactly what part of "a direct popular vote in each state" is eluding your grasp? Does that sound like the national government is controlling the outcome? Unelected officials?

Actually, I understood quite perfectly. I also realized my mistake (see below).

My fault. But still, it does not represent the total vote of the people. As we have had many technological advances since the institution of the EC, we no longer have to have the EC.

But it is important to maintain the constitutional balance in the relation between the national government and the states, even if the Electoral College is obsolete.

And this cannot be achieved by other means...?

Ok, but how does the creation of the Senate have to do with the theory of the EC? That's what I'm not understanding.

Both institutions exist in part for the same reason; to balance out the influence between the national government and the states, and to place the constitutional law as primary. The United States was never intended to be a direct democracy or a single homogenous government with all power invested in that government.

Right. It's a democratic republic, though, not a democracy. However, I don't recall there being anything necessary about the government taking part in the presidential votes.

Oh really:

One possible alternative I've thought of is this: replacing the Electoral College with a national election in which the candidates must win a majority of states determined by direct popular vote in each state.

That would be a vote made by the state. Hence, the states' votes.

In this scheme, a candidate would have to win a presidential election in at least half plus one of all the states in the union; presently that being 26 seperate elections out of 50 held on Election Day. The archaic mechanism of the EC would be eliminated, the popular vote would become the primary determiner in each state, yet the actual election of the President would remain within the power of the several states by necessity of winning multiple votes to gain the majority of states.

Again, this would be a vote made by the state, not the people.

My first paragraph outlining the proposal. Notice the bolded, coloured text.

Notice where you've shot yourself in the foot, you mean?

Now, exactly where in that passage are you finding anything like the state governments deciding the results or the president being appointed by government officials?

LOOK ABOVE DUMBASS WHERE I'VE ADMITTED MY MISTAKE AND RECANTED.

[Patrick Degan]

In that case, what's the point of even having seperate states? And what would be the point of anybody from Wyoming voting if their votes would get swamped by the population of a state with 68 times their population?

Oh gee, I forgot that the President has total control over the internal policies of states

Nice little bullshit Strawman.

Are you always this fucking dense?

A question you should no doubt be asking yourself, it seems.

[Illuminatus Primus]

That is not a False Dilemma fallacy, it is pointing out the central flaw of your argument and one which is ignoring the entire reason why the Federal system of this country was constructed as it is.

The States do not function as independently as they once did. Simply stating "states' rights!" and appealing to the authority of those ancient lawyers over two centuries ago is not a compelling reason why hick votes are intrinsically more valuable than urbanite votes.

But it wields a disproportionate representation in the Electoral College by virtue of its greater population and representation in Congress. This is why winning California is considered far more important than winning West Virginia, Utah, New Mexico, and all the three- and four-vote states in the EC.

Its still underrepresented. You stated a fact which in no way contradicted his statement, which was derived from the most elementry mathematics.

[The Kernel]

Nice little bullshit Strawman.

Did you or did you not just complain that it would be pointless to have states unless they had an unfair proportion of voting control in the Presidential election? Obviously you do not get that state rights are not totally controlled by the Executive branch of the Federal government.