Support NeoGAF

[jstevenson]

It would reduce the magnification of the problem but it still is a shitty system.

No system that can be won by 22% of the popular vote is a defensible system.

We already have checks to the executive that give preferential treatment to smaller states and gives a voice to rural areas.

That's a straw man argument because it's a situation that would never happen (a situation where 22% of the population voted for one candidate winning all of the small states by precisely one vote, while losing all the other states by 100%).

The only time it's even tipped the balance is in elections within 1-2 points. Further, it hasn't tipped an election where a candidate had the majority of the popular vote (only a plurality).

I get the angst, but the small states aren't going to give up the minor advantage.

 

[Zamorro]

It seems like the EC is really only a problem when the campaign that wins the popular vote is incompetent.

All losers are incompetent in hindsight. They wouldn't be losers otherwise.

Or maybe you can name a presidential candidate who lost an election without being incompetent in some way?

 

[jfkgoblue]

I don't believe you.

Are you saying that there are no farmers outside of the US? Or that there are no decaying steel industries? Or disenfranchised minorities? Or all these can't be in a single country?

You keep saying that Europeans don't know anything about the US. I would argue that you know nothing about Europe. I'm trying really hard not to troll about Americans not knowing anything about the outside world.

I know how the Electoral College came to be. It may have served its purpose back in the day, but it is now an aberration, and plenty of people in this thread have already explained why.

I am explaining why it is different. People take pride in the differences in their states and what makes them different. Michigan has the Auto industry, Pennsylvania has the steel industry. California has the Tech industry, New york has the finanical industry.. All world leading(at least used to be) industries in the past, I could go on and on about Texas and oil, the upper midwest and farming(which btw, varies betweens states what products are grown). That's the thing about the US, "farmers and decaying industry", is a much too broad category to place on it, it is diverse even in those categories.

You did hear about a little thing called the European Union, right?

That's what I am comparing the US as a whole too. the EU was Europe's attempt to ape the US.

 

[Khaz]

That's the thing about the US, "farmers and decaying industry", is a much too broad category to place on it, it is diverse even in those categories.

Of course it's diverse, I'm not denying that. But it's diverse outside of the US too.

And you don't even need to drag the EU into that, you can look at individual countries within it.

 

[Eidan]

We just had an election where several states flipped unexpectedly, including one "safe" one.

Your point is that, with the Electoral College, you can win a general election in the US with a platform that solely addresses the needs of swing states. You're definitively and objectively wrong.

My point is that the Electoral College encourages candidates to broaden their platforms to include the needs of swing states. I am right, with objective results to prove it.

I said that the Electoral College encourages candidates to prioritize key swing states while ignoring safe ones. As a resident of Maryland, presidential campaigns aren't wasting time or money visiting us. Because the state is winner take all, Democrats have no incentive to visit communities because the minimum needed to win is assured. And Republicans in the state lose incentive to vote because they know they can't outnumber the Democratic majority. It's an altogether net loss for civic participation and "balance", as you say.

On the other hand, the thoughts and concerns of voters in Florida and Ohio take priority, and voter participation in those states versus safe states reflect the outsized amount of attention they receive.

And all of this still neglects the inherit problem of a presidential election system that says that because you live in Nowhere, South Dakota, your vote should be more powerful than a vote in New York.

 

[MIMIC]

Does anyone know the allocation of EC votes if it were proportional instead of winner take all?

I did Alabama and said "fuck it." lol

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

Sam Harris shares his thoughts about the result. He does not sound happy at all.

 

[Curufinwe]

What is to stop the republicans changing the EC to give more votes to reliably red states?

 

[user_nat]

Wouldn't a system that assigned EC Electors by a percentage open the door to 3rd parties actually having an impact? Meaning neither party reaches the number needed to win.

Which makes me think that both major parties benefit from the current system.

 

[Jisgsaw]

That's what I am comparing the US as a whole too. the EU was Europe's attempt to ape the US.

Not really, it was above all an attempt to avoid wars.

Hell, I'd argue what you describe in America can be applied to Germany too, where you have 16 states that used to be independent nations (technically, hundreds of different nations, that slowly got unified), with their own pride and dialects they are still cultivating.

Does anyone know the allocation of EC votes if it were proportional instead of winner take all?

I did Alabama and said "fuck it." lol

Someone posted this:

Here's what I have, based on the percentage of votes for each state.

I'll double check the Michigan and New Hampshire numbers to make sure it's accurate as of now.

As you can see, neither get to 270. However, it shows Clinton with more EV than Trump based on percentages of votes per state.

Wouldn't a system that assigned EC Electors by a percentage open the door to 3rd parties actually having an impact? Meaning neither party reaches the number needed to win.

Which makes me think that both major parties benefit from the current system.

Who the hell needs more than two parties, amiright?
(seriously, your political system is kinda fucked)

 

[Jisgsaw]

Edit: sorry, double post.

 

[jstevenson]

Does anyone know the allocation of EC votes if it were proportional instead of winner take all?

I did Alabama and said "fuck it." lol

279-259 Trump win.

Trump won his states by bigger margins than Clinton won hers

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ege-elect-hillary-clinton-isnt-going-to-work/

 

[numble]

False by definition. The needs of those swing states are considered in addition to those of states where the candidate is naturally winning handily. That's additional balance and inclusion not incentivized by the straight popular vote system.

A straight popular vote means going after all votes because they matter. Again, traditionally candidates would not go to Maine or Nebraska, but because they opened up their electoral votes to a partial proportional allocation, the candidates went there because the votes there mattered.

Proof positive that focusing on big cities alone is a valid strategy to winning the popular vote.

The EC worked - she was penalized for this unbalanced strategy and lost.

Those were not campaign events in Blue states. Those were fundraising events. She did not campaign in those states. Please stop being disingenuous.

She won the popular vote by gaining overwhelming margins with 20% of the population, despite losing by 5 points with 80% of the population. That happened. No hypotheticals, no comparisons. That's not "made up" anything - that's the hard, objective truth.

That only gets worse when candidates are incentivized to run it up in those 20 cities. Without the EC, there is no reason to do anything but campaign in the biggest cities by population density. Doing anything else is by definition not mathematically sensible.

You are applying different rules to facts, which you already admitted was fundamentally wrong.

In a popular vote scenario, the Republican turnout wouldn't be depressed in blue states and vice versa in red states. They would not be running up margins because the races would be closer.

Finally, under the electoral college, 3 of the last 5 contests were decided on the outcome of 1-2 swing state. Florida in 2000, Florida in 2004 and Florida/PA in 2016. Whoever wins Florida wins the election. The Obama campaigns implied that candidates should spread out the map, but the clearer lesson learned is to triple down on Florida. "Focus on Florida" is a clear outcome of the electoral system, not focus on more rural states.

 

[StrategyFan]

giving any value to what the slave-owning founding fathers think about laws and justice is about as important as worrying about what the Bible has to say about climate change

 

[Timedog]

Rural America deserves a voice even if what they have to say is abhorrent. You can't have democracy without and open platform.

There are other options and ways to fix the electoral college but going with a strictly popular vote is not the way. Doing so completely marginalizes anyone not living in a major city or on the coast.

No it doesn't. My vote shouldn't be worth less than someone else's vote. It marginalizes me. My voice is not as important.

Rural America deserves a voice, just not one that has more value than my voice.

 

[avaya]

giving any value to what the slave-owning founding fathers think about laws and justice is about as important as worrying about what the Bible has to say about climate change

No lies detected.

 

[Plumbob]

Land does not vote.

People vote.

Fuck this antiquated nonsense.

 

[UFO]

It seems like the EC is really only a problem when the campaign that wins the popular vote is incompetent.

 

[Jonm1010]

We just had an election where several states flipped unexpectedly, including one "safe" one.

Your point is that, with the Electoral College, you can win a general election in the US with a platform that solely addresses the needs of today's swing states. You're definitively and objectively wrong.

My point is that the Electoral College encourages candidates to broaden their platforms to include the needs of swing states as well as "safe" states. I am right, with objective results to prove it.

Swing states and leaners, and yes you can. You point to Wisonsin and Michigan to help you point. But ignore that dozens of states are just flat ignored in an EC system.

It no more forces a broadening of the platform then a straight popular vote.

Your entire premise rests upon faulty assumptions about how representative the populations in those swing states are. And you continue to ignore the extremely undemocratic nature of the system that gives more power to rural voters.

 

[jstevenson]

No it doesn't. My vote shouldn't be worth less than someone else's vote. It marginalizes me. My voice is not as important.

Rural America deserves a voice, just not one that has more value than my voice.

That's not true though.

Your voice is just as valuable as everyone else's in your state.

Your state is allocated a voice within the Republic and via its statewide election of electors

For the House of Representatives, your voice is roughly equally weighted to other states populations. (But maybe your district is super blue or red so you feel like your voice doesn't matter)

For the Senate, it can vary wildly. (of course you could live in a red or blue state and vote the other way but lose)

Regardless, in the presidential race, your vote counts just as much as any other person in your state.

 

[ReBurn]

What is to stop the republicans changing the EC to give more votes to reliably red states?

Article 5 of the Constitution.

 

[Plumbob]

If pure democracy is a lamb, a wolf, and a fox voting on what to eat for dinner, electoral college is a lamb, an ox, and a fox voting on what to eat and the lamb still getting eaten.

Makes literally no sense. By denying Al Gore and Hillary Clinton the presidency we've delayed our response to climate change so significantly that millions of people may die.

 

[theCalamity]

That's not true though.

Your voice is just as valuable as everyone else's in your state.

But this is about a national election and my vote is worth less than someone in Wyoming when it comes to voting for President. One person's vote should count just the same as another's.

 

[Jonm1010]

That's a straw man argument because it's a situation that would never happen (a situation where 22% of the population voted for one candidate winning all of the small states by precisely one vote, while losing all the other states by 100%).

The only time it's even tipped the balance is in elections within 1-2 points. Further, it hasn't tipped an election where a candidate had the majority of the popular vote (only a plurality).

I get the angst, but the small states aren't going to give up the minor advantage.

It illustrates the flaw in the system. Which is being shown in smaller capacity right now.

It is an inequitable system that bestows unfair advantage to smaller, more rural states and allows the race to be determined without a majority.

To argue in favor is to argue those areas deserve more power.

 

[YourMaster]

In this topic I've learned that states are people to.

 

[ReBurn]

If pure democracy is a lamb, a wolf, and a fox voting on what to eat for dinner, electoral college is a lamb, an ox, and a fox voting on what to eat and the lamb still getting eaten.

Makes literally no sense. By denying Al Gore and Hillary Clinton the presidency we've delayed our response to climate change so significantly that millions of people may die.

The United States isn't a pure democracy, though. It's a representative democracy. In a pure democracy the people would have a direct voice in all government action. Instead, and by design, we elect and appoint representatives to act on our behalf at the state and federal levels. Your state appoints electors to the electoral college on your behalf, and you elect the people who appoint them.

Unfortunately the voice of the individual in US politics is non-existent. Always has been.

 

[Jonm1010]

That's not true though.

Your voice is just as valuable as everyone else's in your state.

Your state is allocated a voice within the Republic and via its statewide election of electors

For the House of Representatives, your voice is roughly equally weighted to other states populations. (But maybe your district is super blue or red so you feel like your voice doesn't matter)

For the Senate, it can vary wildly. (of course you could live in a red or blue state and vote the other way but lose)

Regardless, in the presidential race, your vote counts just as much as any other person in your state.

This was already discussed:

It's not entirely based on population. For example California gets an Elector for every 650,000 residents or so, Wyoming gets one for every 150,000 residents.

To put it bluntly, there is no good justification for this with an office that represents the entire country.

 

[mashoutposse]

How can you write these two sentences one after the other?
You literally wrote "candidates are encouraged by the EC system to make unbalanced campaigns to favour swing states, so EC encourages balanced campaigns"...

Candidates have to think about winning more states/regions with EC. That requires a wider platform and more direct contact with more people.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Yeah, that's a big issue. Same here in Canada. 51-49 is the same win as 95-5.

Hopefully we can change that for 2019, especially after this fuck up down south. If a far right party takes advantage of proportional representation, at least we can band together with the moderate right to stop them.

 

[Khaz]

The United States isn't a pure democracy, though. It's a representative democracy. In a pure democracy the people would have a direct voice in all government action. Instead, and by design, we elect and appoint representatives to act on our behalf at the state and federal levels. Your state appoints electors to the electoral college on your behalf, and you elect the people who appoint them.

Unfortunately the voice of the individual in US politics is non-existent.

No one is arguing about what the US is right now. People are talking about what could, or should, be. Pure democracy exists nowhere except the smallest communities, as it's a slow as hell process. It's not what it's argued about.

You are represented by the parliament, both the house and the Senate. You vote for your representative, which pass laws on your behalf. While representative democracy is necessary for the legislative process, there is no reason why the President of the USA, the person who represent the people of the US both nationally and internationally, couldn't be elected through direct democracy.

 

[Jisgsaw]

Candidates have to think about winning more states/regions with EC. That requires a wider platform and more direct contact with more people.

And candidates would have to think about winning voters in every single state in a direct democracy, or at least in an Economy that didn't have this absurd winner takes all rule.

This is worse how?

 

[guek]

No it doesn't. My vote shouldn't be worth less than someone else's vote. It marginalizes me. My voice is not as important.

Rural America deserves a voice, just not one that has more value than my voice.

But this is about a national election and my vote is worth less than someone in Wyoming when it comes to voting for President. One person's vote should count just the same as another's.

You guys do realize that your vote in the house and the senate is also unequal between states, right? Every vote for a senator and house rep from a state with a smaller population is ultimately worth more, particularly in the senate where there's no accounting for population and all states get two seats and two votes.

 

[mugwhump]

that just makes it hurt more

 

[Mass Effect]

Here's what I have, based on the percentage of votes for each state.

I'll double check the Michigan and New Hampshire numbers to make sure it's accurate as of now.

As you can see, neither get to 270. However, it shows Clinton with more EV than Trump based on percentages of votes per state.

Why does Alabama only have 3 electoral votes on this chart? It has 9. It still wouldn't get either to 370 though.

 

[numble]

Candidates have to think about winning more states/regions with EC. That requires a wider platform and more direct contact with more people.

No they are not. The map was widened due to Obama, but the 2000 and 2004 elections came down to Florida and Ohio. The candidates campaigned in fewer states because other states were solid red or blue. If you do a chart of campaign visits in those elections, it will be heavily favored to those 2 states. You even agreed earlier that the electoral college allows for a situation where only 1 state is the focus of an election.

 

[theCalamity]

You guys do realize that your vote in the house and the senate is also unequal between states, right? Every vote for a senator and house rep from a state with a smaller population is ultimately worth more, particularly in the senate where there's no accounting for population and all states get two seats and two votes.

Those are statewide elections. For a nationwide election, everyone's vote should be equal.

 

[ReBurn]

No one is arguing about what the US is right now. People are talking about what could, or should, be. Pure democracy exists nowhere except the smallest communities, as it's a slow as hell process. It's not what it's argued about.

You are represented by the parliament, both the house and the Senate. You vote for your representative, which pass laws on your behalf. While representative democracy is necessary for the legislative process, there is no reason why the President of the USA, the person who represent the people of the US both nationally and internationally, couldn't be elected through direct democracy.

You're right, there's no reason why the president couldn't be elected by popular vote. But by and large the system did what it was intended to do, which is to give states a voice in the outcome proportional to their size.

We're not going to see a change in the electoral college. When it comes to winning the presidency the people in control of the political parties want to keep it just like it is. It's a lot easier for them to plan a campaign where they get 270 electoral votes than it is to plan a campaign where they have to win 60 million individual votes.

If you want to make individual voices count then we also need to get rid of the two-party system. The democrat and republican parties have a lock on the system and there's little incentive for them to let it go.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

I don't know where the "only 22%" figure came from, but IN THEORY, someone could win the electoral college while only winning .0000000001% of the vote if he or she won a bunch of states by a single vote(1-0 in Cali,m NY, Texas, FL, etc) and millions of people voted against this candidate in the remaining states.

A straight popular vote means going after all votes because they matter. Again, traditionally candidates would not go to Maine or Nebraska, but because they opened up their electoral votes to a partial proportional allocation, the candidates went there because the votes there mattered.



Those were not campaign events in Blue states. Those were fundraising events. She did not campaign in those states. Please stop being disingenuous.


You are applying different rules to facts, which you already admitted was fundamentally wrong.

In a popular vote scenario, the Republican turnout wouldn't be depressed in blue states and vice versa in red states. They would not be running up margins because the races would be closer.

Finally, under the electoral college, 3 of the last 5 contests were decided on the outcome of 1-2 swing state. Florida in 2000, Florida in 2004 and Florida/PA in 2016. Whoever wins Florida wins the election. The Obama campaigns implied that candidates should spread out the map, but the clearer lesson learned is to triple down on Florida. "Focus on Florida" is a clear outcome of the electoral system, not focus on more rural states.

In '04 Kerry was much, much closer to winning Ohio(and thus the election) than Florida. 2004 was really about winning two out of three of OH, PA, and FL, not necessarily requriing Florida to win that year.

 

[jfkgoblue]

Why does Alabama only have 3 electoral votes on this chart? It has 9. It still wouldn't get either to 370 though.

If it was added correctly, it would give both close to 270 with maybe third party siphoning a couple off.

There is also something else people are missing, in the event of a recount, it would be a nightmare

 

[guek]

Those are statewide elections. For a nationwide election, everyone's vote should be equal.

But it's functionally the same thing. You're voting for your state's allocation of votes, just as you're voting for your state's vote in the senate and house. States do not have equal representation respective to their populations and never have.

 

[Heigic]

If the election was decided by popular vote then they both would have campaigned differently. So I don't think saying Hillary would be president if elections are decided by popular vote is correct.

 

[numble]

In '04 Kerry was much, much closer to winning Ohio(and thus the election) than Florida. 2004 was really about winning two out of three of OH, PA, and FL, not necessarily requriing Florida to win that year.

Yes, I meant Florida for 2000 and Ohio for 2004. In any case, the argument that the electoral college encourages you to concentrate on more states is disproven by these past elections that heavily focused on 2-3 states.

 

[jfkgoblue]

Yes, I meant Florida for 2000 and Ohio for 2004. In any case, the argument that the electoral college encourages you to concentrate on more states is disproven by these past elections that heavily focused on 2-3 states.

They did not just focus on 2-3 states. Wi, Mi, Oh, Va, Fl, Nv etc all had heavy campaigning.

 

[Nibiru]

I think if the popular vote was the win condition Trump could have stayed a democrat run as one with a completely different platform and beaten Hillary in the primaries. I mean lets face it if the popular vote was the goal the political parties would not even look the same.

You would probably have middle America not even vote at all because candidates wouldn't even bother with them. Might even end up with even lower overall turnout than you have now because candidates would just court big cities.

It would basically alter the entire political landscape.

 

[Raylan]

So basically she won. That bites. Yeah, the EC has to go.

She lost. Fair and square. And no, the EC has to stay.

Removing certain rules because you can't/didn't win is hilarioius. Accept it and do it better next time.

 

[Lowmelody]

Kind of, it's the whole protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. It was meant to help even things out.

And now we have minorities more exposed to hateful bigotry than most of us have seen in our life times and a literal fascist that controls every branch of government.

So much for majorities and tyranny.

The foundations need to be completely shattered and remade with minorities this time.

 

[numble]

They did not just focus on 2-3 states. Wi, Mi, Oh, Va, Fl, Nv etc all had heavy campaigning.

The heavy focus was on those 3 states. I am not sure why you include Ohio and Florida in your list when it is part of the states I mentioned. Kerry visited the 3 states of Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania 58 times, which was roughly double the visits that the 4 states you mentioned received. The 1 state of Ohio was visited 24 times. Nevada, Michigan and Virginia don't even add up to 20 visits in total. He also visited the 1 state of Pennsylvania more than Nevada, Michigan and Virginia in total.

 

[Bishop89]

Can someone explain what the popular vote is? So confusing with all these different polls etc

 

[sphagnum]

Can someone explain what the popular vote is? So confusing with all these different polls etc

The normal one where they just count how many people across the country voted for her.

 

[Gallbaro]

Is this the bargaining phase? lol.

The electoral college is not going away for at least another 100 years. You need a super majority in the senate and 3/4 state ratification. Seeing as how at any given time at least half the states benefit from the two extra votes, not happening. States call for a general constitutional convention (and I think we are actually close to that) but then everything is on the table.

As to rural vs. urban, which I do not understand as their are only two "Urban States," RI and NJ. Pretty much all the states have Urban and Rural populations. So what you are really complaining about is states with a greater percentage of rural population vs urban population.

Besides us Democrats have our own advantage with the EC as it currently stands, apart from the DNC being completely incestuous, inward facing and ignorant. The entire North East and West Coast are huge head starts in a presidential election. And those EC seats are always helped by fact that the census counts residents, not citizens, (not 3/5 but full 5/5ths people!) so those immigrants (illegal or not) count towards the electoral votes of citizens of that state. Immigrants tend to live in blue states...

http://kff.org/other/state-indicato...rtModel={"colId":"Non-Citizen","sort":"desc"}