New York Times calls for the end of Electoral College

[haas mark]

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.

And precisely why the states shouldn't have equal votes.

[Patrick Degan]

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.

Then my apologies.

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constitutional balance in the relation between the national government and the states, even if the Electoral College is obsolete.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...?

Specify them. Equal representation in the Senate and the states' control over the election process for the presidency are what that balance is based upon. While the setup with the Senate would remain in force, erasing the second would erode that balance to the point where the power of the several states would become progressively untenable as a concept.

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.

The government does not "take part in the presidential votes". The Electoral College is not composed of members of the government. The only role played by the Senate is as the judge of the election and that is largely a formality. The House only gets to decide a presidential election if no contestant wins a clear electoral majority and that has happened only three times in American history, if memory serves correctly.

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.

Wrong, that is an election in each state. The result of the popular vote in each state decides the issue. The state doesn't take the place of electors in the way you seem to be interpreting it.

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.

See above.

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

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

Notice where you keep misinterpreting what is actually being said?

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?

I'm getting this just fine, thank you very much. And you keep missing the fucking point —this is not a "states' rights" issue (so let's have no more of this particular Red Herring) but a balance-of-interests issue. I'm sorry if you seem unable to grasp exactly why the American Federal system was constructed in the way it was: to balance out proportional and equal representation in national affairs and to satisfy the concerns of both high- and low-population states.

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

You're being an idiot today.

Sayeth the moron who can't seem to understand what is being said in plain fucking text.

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).

And... this little bit of bullshit derives from my arguments where, exactly? Oh yeah —pulled out of your own ass. What I'm saying has exactly jack shit to do with either liberalism or conservatism and the pissing match between the two ideologies, or Christianity or Zoroasterianism or whatever other bit of bullshit you decide to pluck out of the aforemetioned ass. Kindly stick to topic.

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.

Tsk tsk, the bullshit is flowing today. Let's try to actually deal with the issue at hand instead of writing very bad fiction about what my position is, shall we?

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.

Which is missing the point altogether, as well as ignoring the fact that different states have different concerns which must be addressed in consideration.

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.

As I said above, this is not a "states' rights" issue but a balance-of-interests issue.

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.

It may be derived from the most elementary mathematics, but it ignores political reality. California is considered a more valuable electoral prize, no matter how "mathematically" it might be "underrepresented".

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.

I said no such fucking thing. To reiterate:

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?

Quoting me out of context does not validate your alleged point no matter how much you think it does. The entire reason the present electoral system exists is tied to the concept of the balance-of-interests between the national government and the states. By simply switching to a national direct popular vote, small states would be effectively shut out, in most cases, from any meaningful role in the selection of a president of the United States; the interests of very large urban clusters would be elevated at the disproportionate expense of the interests of small towns and rural areas and the votes of persons in those areas would be effectively nullfied. This contradicts federalism; the aforementioned balance-of-interests by which our system has managed to work for 220+ years now with only one near-catastrophe in its record. This has nothing to do with liberalism, conservatism, Rightwingnut Christianity, refighting the Civil War, or any other bullshit Strawman which seems to be coming forth in the course of this discussion but a conception for replacing the archaing and unrepresentative Electoral College with a system which balances out direct popular vote with state interest and providing a mechanism by which candidates for the White House would demonstrate their mettle for office by successfully campaigning in a far larger number of states and courting far more voters than is the practise at present. Every state would be in play and the voters therein would be vital to ensure the victory.

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.

And precisely why the states shouldn't have equal votes.

Which is not what I am arguing at all.

[Keevan_Colton]

Come on Deegan, put up or shut the fuck up.

Why should the 34 million people in California's opinion only hold as much weight as the opinion of less that half a million in Wyomig?

Your shit is frankly inspidly stupid which I have to say is a very rare occurance with you. The problem brought up with the system is that the winner takes all part of it effectively muzzles the votes of huge numbers of people. Your "solution" only makes this more than 20 times worse, rather than addressing the problem at ALL!

If you cannot present a reason why 34 million peoples support should be worth the same as the support of 1/68th that number without rambling on about the framers intent I will consider your concession accepted.

[Keevan_Colton]

Also, as to the states vote thing there, say each state won is "a vote" and you need 26 of these "votes" to win. That's where the "states votes" comes into this. It's fairly simple isnt it? It was your own idea after all....

[Illuminatus Primus]

Why is the necessities which produced the Great Compromise being asserted a priori as an imperative in the modern world?

You need a reason for why we still need to appease the lower population states at the expense of making everyone who lives in a bigger state have a smaller voice.

You cannot simply state "the little states want more power than their population warrants in a Democracy" and expect us to go, "oooh, duh, how stupid of me!" You need to actually say why that is a good thing.

[Illuminatus Primus]

It may be derived from the most elementary mathematics, but it ignores political reality. California is considered a more valuable electoral prize, no matter how "mathematically" it might be "underrepresented".

Obviously it is worth more than Montana; the point is that it is underrepresented versus what it should be worth by virtue of the number of citizens it has.

[Knife]

Putting Degan's idea aside (though I like it), to actually get the equality you want from a direct vote (one person one vote) while not letting six cities elect the president (which is what most of the fuss is over), perhaps redrawing those lines that mean nothing to some, and change the boundries of states so that the population is more equally divided between the states.

Seriously, the 'get rid of the EC' people advocate it because the 34 million 'voters' in California may not weigh as much as the 2.2 million voters in Utah. And thus, in total votes, they have a point.

The problem, really is that the US is not set up as a east coast to west coast nation state. Rather a collection of supposedly soveriegn states that form the Nation.

To go from the EC to a direct vote so that the 34 million Californians feel better about their vote, means that the States of California and New York are now Soveriegn states in the Union who are superior to the other States in the Union who are suppost to be equal.

You've only shifted the problem instead of cured it. Unless you tear power away from the States making them just a subdivision of the Federal Goverment, you can not make one state in the union inferior to another when it comes to the supposedly equal power they're supposed to have in the Federal scheme.

Truely, the only way to make a direct vote work would BE to redraw the state lines so the population is spread over more states and so that two or three states don't become the only 'worthy' states in national elections.


Then stand by for the gerrymandering.

[Aeolus]

Putting Degan's idea aside (though I like it), to actually get the equality you want from a direct vote (one person one vote) while not letting six cities elect the president (which is what most of the fuss is over), perhaps redrawing those lines that mean nothing to some, and change the boundries of states so that the population is more equally divided between the states.

Seriously, the 'get rid of the EC' people advocate it because the 34 million 'voters' in California may not weigh as much as the 2.2 million voters in Utah. And thus, in total votes, they have a point.

The problem, really is that the US is not set up as a east coast to west coast nation state. Rather a collection of supposedly soveriegn states that form the Nation.

To go from the EC to a direct vote so that the 34 million Californians feel better about their vote, means that the States of California and New York are now Soveriegn states in the Union who are superior to the other States in the Union who are suppost to be equal.

You've only shifted the problem instead of cured it. Unless you tear power away from the States making them just a subdivision of the Federal Goverment, you can not make one state in the union inferior to another when it comes to the supposedly equal power they're supposed to have in the Federal scheme.

Truely, the only way to make a direct vote work would BE to redraw the state lines so the population is spread over more states and so that two or three states don't become the only 'worthy' states in national elections.


Then stand by for the gerrymandering.

I can't imagine that the states would want there borders shifted willy nilly. The great compromise was just that a compromise, and it has worked pretty well for more than 2 centuries. A direct popular election of the president can't be passed and I dont think that it should be passed.

[Patrick Degan]

Come on Deegan, put up or shut the fuck up.

Why should the 34 million people in California's opinion only hold as much weight as the opinion of less that half a million in Wyomig?

Because this country does not operate according to "tyranny of the majority". I'm sorry that you are too dense to grasp this.

Your shit is frankly inspidly stupid which I have to say is a very rare occurance with you. The problem brought up with the system is that the winner takes all part of it effectively muzzles the votes of huge numbers of people. Your "solution" only makes this more than 20 times worse, rather than addressing the problem at ALL!

Given the framing of that alleged argument, I'd say you're not in any position to comment on the insipidity of anybody else's points. You're going to try to argue that a straight direct national vote won't muzzle entire regions of the country which haven't large population clusters? Seems you're merely attempting to trade one problem for another and one which will actually degrade the polis in this country further than it already is.

If you cannot present a reason why 34 million peoples support should be worth the same as the support of 1/68th that number without rambling on about the framers intent I will consider your concession accepted.

You can consider whatever fantasy suits your rantings as much as you like. If you cannot understand why "tyranny of the majority" is not a valid principle of American governance, that is your problem.

Also, as to the states vote thing there, say each state won is "a vote" and you need 26 of these "votes" to win. That's where the "states votes" comes into this. It's fairly simple isnt it? It was your own idea after all....

No, that is your cartoon of my idea. Try again.

Why is the necessities which produced the Great Compromise being asserted a priori as an imperative in the modern world? You need a reason for why we still need to appease the lower population states at the expense of making everyone who lives in a bigger state have a smaller voice. You cannot simply state "the little states want more power than their population warrants in a Democracy" and expect us to go, "oooh, duh, how stupid of me!" You need to actually say why that is a good thing.

Because those necessities are still valid whether you choose to recognise them or not. This is not a small country with a homogenous population with the overwhelming balance of the population either clustered into cities or scattered in rural communities and therefore amenable to a simple one-size-fits-all political solution. Even after the Civil War, the country is still effectively set up as fifty republics unified into a common governmental system, and the interests and problems of a large industrial state require solutions which will not suit the interests or problems of a relatively small agrarian state. Nor do we have a homogenous people by any stretch of the imagination or even a wholly homogenous culture. The one sure method for effectively governing a nation with such economic, cultural, and political diversity is to balance the interests of the different states and communities in such way that both large and small retain an effective voice in decisionmaking. The tradeoffs engineered in this balance-of-interests is how American government has managed to be effective for 220+ years now.

[Keevan_Colton]

Come on Pat you can do better than that. You know fine well the problem here is not the "tyranny of the majority" it's the fucking tyranny of the MINORITY.

Stating the original compromise as an end in it's own right is retarded and frankly beneath you.

[BoredShirtless]

Come on Pat you can do better than that. You know fine well the problem here is not the "tyranny of the majority" it's the fucking tyranny of the MINORITY.

Can you please define "the problem here"?

Stating the original compromise as an end in it's own right is retarded and frankly beneath you.

But he is only pointing out to you that your compromise is probably worse then the original.

[Keevan_Colton]

The way the EC is implemented which makes it winner takes all, thus denying a voice to millions of americans in choosing their head of state.
The best way to fix this is to make it proportional EC votes based on the votes in a state, this however is just a complicated error filled version of a popular vote.

The problem here is assholes cant grasp that just because people live in a metropolitan area they dont ALL vote for one candidate. Why shouldnt every individual voice hold equal weight irrespective of which street they live on?

And, I am still waiting for Deegan to actually conceed how fucking stupid his idea of a solution is. It takes the worst problem, and magnifies it more than 20 fold.

[BoredShirtless]

Why shouldnt every individual voice hold equal weight irrespective of which street they live on?

Patrick has already answered your question:

Because those necessities are still valid whether you choose to recognise them or not. This is not a small country with a homogenous population with the overwhelming balance of the population either clustered into cities or scattered in rural communities and therefore amenable to a simple one-size-fits-all political solution. Even after the Civil War, the country is still effectively set up as fifty republics unified into a common governmental system, and the interests and problems of a large industrial state require solutions which will not suit the interests or problems of a relatively small agrarian state. Nor do we have a homogenous people by any stretch of the imagination or even a wholly homogenous culture. The one sure method for effectively governing a nation with such economic, cultural, and political diversity is to balance the interests of the different states and communities in such way that both large and small retain an effective voice in decisionmaking. The tradeoffs engineered in this balance-of-interests is how American government has managed to be effective for 220+ years now.

[Patrick Degan]

Come on Pat you can do better than that. You know fine well the problem here is not the "tyranny of the majority" it's the fucking tyranny of the MINORITY.

Stating the original compromise as an end in it's own right is retarded and frankly beneath you.

Nowhere near as retarded as this non-argument you keep flogging, which resembles simpleminded political cant rather than logic.

The way the EC is implemented which makes it winner takes all, thus denying a voice to millions of americans in choosing their head of state. The best way to fix this is to make it proportional EC votes based on the votes in a state, this however is just a complicated error filled version of a popular vote.

Proportional allocation of EC votes is an alternative which has been considered from time to time; there is in fact one state which does exactly that (Maine, I believe). It would probably be the best fix to the current system available assuming that the EC could never be amended out of the Constitution.

The problem here is assholes cant grasp that just because people live in a metropolitan area they dont ALL vote for one candidate. Why shouldnt every individual voice hold equal weight irrespective of which street they live on?

People are well aware of that fact, but that is not the issue at hand. The issue is the conception of balance-of-interests in the Constitution and how it it neither likely nor altogether wise to dispense with that mechanism where presidential elections are concerned.

And, I am still waiting for Deegan to actually conceed how fucking stupid his idea of a solution is. It takes the worst problem, and magnifies it more than 20 fold.

For me to concede the point, you must first meet the burden of demonstrating conclusively that the proposal is unworkable and that is not done simply by asserting ad-infinitum that it would "magnify the problem twentyfold".

[Keevan_Colton]

Thats absolute shite and you know it. If a constituency crosses a rural and urban area should the rural votes count twice because they have different issues?

[Patrick Degan]

Thats absolute shite and you know it. If a constituency crosses a rural and urban area should the rural votes count twice because they have different issues?

My, what a comprehensive and definitive counterargument.

[Keevan_Colton]

Right, let's make this very very clear for you, idiot.
With your idea you could win the presidency with the approval of 26 million or so people to win the 26 smallest states. Cant you see the huge fucking problem with that?

Your idea of having to win a majority of states as the criteria for winning the presidency is so retarded I could scarce believe it was you that posted it.

My 20 fold comes from what I pointed out about the population of california then being equal in voice to the population of wyomig...and yet being equal in number to over 20 states! It isnt my fault if you arent following this.

[Keevan_Colton]

Thats absolute shite and you know it. If a constituency crosses a rural and urban area should the rural votes count twice because they have different issues?

My, what a comprehensive and definitive counterargument.

It's better than your "Well hicks have different issues so they have to be counted twice...the constitution says this is important so nah!" crap.

The fucking thing also had certain races being counted as a a fraction...that got sorted out quick enough. Why is it that americans tend to go into "Defend the constitution!" mode whenever it's criticized these days...it isnt a fucking holy text for fucks sake, it CAN be wrong....and see the Jefferson quote a few pages back in this thread for the opinion form back then.

[Patrick Degan]

With your idea you could win the presidency with the approval of 26 million or so people to win the 26 smallest states. Cant you see the huge fucking problem with that?

And... all of those election results would be uniform and all of those small states would uniformly go into the column for one candidate/party election after election? I thought you were arguing that this doesn't happen.

BTW, there are only 19 states with five or less electoral votes. Of those, in recent electoral history, only six have consistently gone Republican, one has consistently gone Democrat, and the rest have swung wildly over the years depending upon which has proven the stronger candidate in any particular contest.

There are also 23 states with electoral vote totals of 10 or greater. Under your logic, it is conceivable that a candidate could win the presidency by winning the approval of all 23 large-population states plus any three beyond those. The only time that is likely is in a landslide scenario, but at that point any question of majorities of states is moot.

Your idea of having to win a majority of states as the criteria for winning the presidency is so retarded I could scarce believe it was you that posted it.

Insults do not a rebuttal make.

My 20 fold comes from what I pointed out about the population of california then being equal in voice to the population of wyomig...and yet being equal in number to over 20 states! It isnt my fault if you arent following this.

Because it's not really possible to follow a repetitious bullshit argument past a certain point.

[Patrick Degan]

Thats absolute shite and you know it. If a constituency crosses a rural and urban area should the rural votes count twice because they have different issues?

My, what a comprehensive and definitive counterargument.

It's better than your "Well hicks have different issues so they have to be counted twice...the constitution says this is important so nah!" crap.

That is a blatant lie about my argument. Quote me where I say "hicks should be counted twice" or shut the fuck up.

The fucking thing also had certain races being counted as a a fraction...that got sorted out quick enough. Why is it that americans tend to go into "Defend the constitution!" mode whenever it's criticized these days...it isnt a fucking holy text for fucks sake, it CAN be wrong....and see the Jefferson quote a few pages back in this thread for the opinion form back then.

Red Herring fallacy which has zero relevance to this discussion.

[Iceberg]

Not just the majority but the vast majority of the American people live in urban or suburban areas. And the disparity is increasing, not decreasing, by the decade. America has not been majority rural at any time since the first World War.

In 1990, the population of the United States was 90% urban, 10% rural, and that percentage has balanced further in favor of the urban population since 1990. 128 million Americans - close to half the population - live in the 24 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas of the US.

Yet you, Patrick, continue to insist that this 90% of the American population should have no more voice than the remaining 10%.

[Keevan_Colton]

That is a blatant lie about my argument. Quote me where I say "hicks should be counted twice" or shut the fuck up.

Apparently, you dont realize that counting some people more than others because of geography is effectively counting the hick vote twice. Althought you might prefer "minority" instead since that goes well with the preventing the tyranny of the majority shite you keep spewing.

Your crap about the tyranny of the majority and the fact the population is non-hemogenus, is bullshit too. Individuals are all different, with different interests and concerns. Should my neighbours vote count twice because they care more about the price of daycare?

[haas mark]

Question to Degan...

How is there a fault in having a simple popular vote, where every vote is counted with equal weight?

[Aeolus]

Question to Degan...

How is there a fault in having a simple popular vote, where every vote is counted with equal weight?

Because the President is supposed to represent the whole Union and not a half dozen big citys. The smaller states only joined the Union after the great compromise was put forward. Undoing that (if it were possible and its not) would increase sectionalism, And its not as if it would assure the president of being elected by the majority..more likely you would get 3 or 4 major canidates and the winner taking less than 50% It would also undo the two party system which inlarge part exists to elect a president...And the two party system helps to keep all the crazy fringe groups out of power

[haas mark]

Question to Degan...

How is there a fault in having a simple popular vote, where every vote is counted with equal weight?

Because the President is supposed to represent the whole Union and not a half dozen big citys. The smaller states only joined the Union after the great compromise was put forward. Undoing that (if it were possible and its not) would increase sectionalism, And its not as if it would assure the president of being elected by the majority..more likely you would get 3 or 4 major canidates and the winner taking less than 50% It would also undo the two party system which inlarge part exists to elect a president...And the two party system helps to keep all the crazy fringe groups out of power

Okay, I can understand that, except for the part about a bipartisan gov't.

Now, what I don't understand is how giving each state equal weight would somehow be better.