Thoughts on Electoral College?

[SpiffyJr]

So, I've never really been into politics but this latest election was particularly interesting to me. Additionally, everyone keeps telling me the popular vote does not determine the winner of the election which, while technically true, doesn't really happen that often in practice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_where _winner_lost_popular_vote). I'm a data guy so I did some checking.

* Every president to lose popular vote and win electoral vote (except Adams, whose listed as a Federalist) was Republican according to that list above.
* The margin for popular vote appears small in all cases (1% or less)

I'm no history buff or politics master but is this accurate? It seems to me that, in most cases, popular vote does determine the outcome of the election but it's essentially capped by state? Someone explain all this shit to me.

Also, say hypothetically everyone decided to move to Iowa. Iowa now has 99.7% of the population of the United States and leans with party X. Would there ever be a time where party Y or Z would win? People that are geographically close tend to think the same, right?

[Gelston]

I think the should keep the college, but get rid of the winner take all in every state.

[ClydeR]

Each of the fifty states gets a number, not less than one, of members of the House of Representatives proportional to that state's population relative to the national population. There are a total of 435 members of the House.

In addition, each state gets 2 Senators.

Each states gets a number of electors equal to the state's number of House members plus number of Senators. The minimum number of electors in a state is 3.

The District of Columbia is not a state, but the Constitution says that D.C. gets a number of electors equal to the number of electors from the state with the fewest electors.

Adding it all up, that's 435 electors attributable to House members, 100 attributable to Senators, and 3 attributable to D.C., for a total of the famous number 538.

If everybody except for 50 people moved to Iowa, leaving one person in each of the other states and D.C., then Iowa would get 388 electoral votes, and the other 49 states and D.C. would get 3 votes each, or 150 votes. Iowa could decide the election all by itself if it used a winner-take-all system of allocating its electoral votes, as 48 of the 50 states do. The extra 2 votes per state make a difference when there are many small population states and no states with an overwhelming population.

The Founding Fathers did not envision the selection of electors in the manner they are selected today. Some of the Founding Fathers believed the system would be implemented in a way that would allow a small group of wise men to pick the President, insulating the process from popular passion.

[~Rocktar~]

It's working as intended. It is designed to actually give a shit about the population that does not live in the most urbanized areas. Removing it will disenfranchise everyone in the country that does not live in just a few small areas. Here is a map of what that looks like according to US Census data. Want to really cry, imagine having the Presidential election decided by these few areas and how hard the candidates would hammer them and fuck off for the rest of the country. Literally, if they could solidly win these areas, they would not ever have to do anything else if you didn't have the Electoral College.

Here is the link to the image since I am too lazy to resize it. https://verocommunique.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/haf-of-us-population-county-map.png

[Shaps]

Holy shit that map is cool Rocktar. Crazy when you think about it actually, considering the land mass in the US. But very very cool link. Thanks.

[Tgo01]

This is actually why the electoral college works. Hillary got a lot of votes in California, a state she could safely ignore and focus her efforts in other states. If we used the popular vote a candidate could ignore most of the country and just try to court voters in large cities or large states and win. Hillary ended up ignoring the wrong states and it cost her the election, as it should have.

[~Rocktar~]

Holy shit that map is cool Rocktar. Crazy when you think about it actually, considering the land mass in the US. But very very cool link. Thanks.

You are very welcome.

[Taernath]

This is actually why the electoral college works. Hillary got a lot of votes in California, a state she could safely ignore and focus her efforts in other states. If we used the popular vote a candidate could ignore most of the country and just try to court voters in large cities or large states and win. Hillary ended up ignoring the wrong states and it cost her the election, as it should have.

On the other hand, voters in non-swing states (like me) don't affect anything because their state almost never swaps, and the college also prevents the rise of third-party candidates.

I'm not really for dismantling the college, but I can see some of the appeal.

[Warriorbird]

It's set up to enable small states and rural areas to have more power and to keep us at two political parties. People's mileage on it varies.

[Donquix]

This is actually why the electoral college works. Hillary got a lot of votes in California, a state she could safely ignore and focus her efforts in other states. If we used the popular vote a candidate could ignore most of the country and just try to court voters in large cities or large states and win. Hillary ended up ignoring the wrong states and it cost her the election, as it should have.

So instead she ignores california and focuses all her effort on areas with orders of magnitude fewer people, that just happen to be in states that are evenly divded enough in population that they can be swayed to either candidate.

The elector college doesn't make the system more fair, it doesn't balance anything out, and it doesn't give rural voters as a whole a bigger voice. It just shifts the focus from millions of people in large population centers (you know, the bulk of the people who live in the country), to tens of thousands in battleground states.

[Tgo01]

So instead she ignores california and focuses all her effort on areas with orders of magnitude fewer people, that just happen to be in states that are evenly divded enough in population that they can be swayed to either candidate.

Yeah but that's because the nation has become so politically polarized in the past couple of decades. Wasn't too long ago almost every state went to Republican Ronald Reagan, a couple of decades prior almost every state went to Democrat Lyndon Johnson. That type of thing happening seems close to impossible these days but it's not totally out of the realm of possibilities.

Hillary only received 52% of the vote in Oregon, a typical solid blue state. Trump only got 53% of the vote in Texas, a typical solid red state.

I think in the few elections both sides might have to start paying attention to these typical red/blue states and stop treating them as guaranteed victories.

[Donquix]

the focus will always just be largest states they can realistically win. Sure trump "only" got 53%, but hillary got 43. The difference was so little because Texas is the libertarian capital of the world and Gary Johnson ate up 4% of nearly all republican votes, realistically trump was 60+% there, and I can guarantee if there was ever a "real" scare of Texas swinging a fuck TON of republicans would show up. Likewise in California for democrats. People just don't show up at the polls for the presidential election when it's a foregone conclusion their state will win.

Johnson had that bump from ushering the country through the JFK assassination, Regan was jesus. Neither of them count!

1 person, 1 vote. The senate and house are already setup to make sure each area gets representation, that's their job. The electoral college is even more ridiculous now...what's our urban/rural spread? Something like 80/90+% urban? It was the inverse when the system was founded, its job was to prevent the minority from voting for the majority. Now it is enabling that.

[Warriorbird]

Yeah but that's because the nation has become so politically polarized in the past couple of decades. Wasn't too long ago almost every state went to Republican Ronald Reagan, a couple of decades prior almost every state went to Democrat Lyndon Johnson. That type of thing happening seems close to impossible these days but it's not totally out of the realm of possibilities.

Hillary only received 52% of the vote in Oregon, a typical solid blue state. Trump only got 53% of the vote in Texas, a typical solid red state.

I think in the few elections both sides might have to start paying attention to these typical red/blue states and stop treating them as guaranteed victories.

Or you'll take our ability to vote away and glory in the Russian American Coprosperity Sphere.

[Androidpk]

Or you'll take our ability to vote away and glory in the Russian American Coprosperity Sphere.

:lol:

[Warriorbird]

:lol:

It's somehow extra hilarious when Russia proves me right. Yeah.

[Tgo01]

Johnson had that bump from ushering the country through the JFK assassination, Regan was jesus. Neither of them count!

What about Bush Sr? 40 states

Nixon, 49.

Eisenhower, 39 and 41.


It was the inverse when the system was founded, its job was to prevent the minority from voting for the majority. Now it is enabling that.

My understanding is the purpose was the exact opposite; they didn't want a simple majority of voters to decide who would be president. The original idea was the electoral voters weren't bound to any one particular party and they would be entrusted to choose the best candidate, not necessarily who the people wanted. This is almost a forgone conclusion now since like half the states mandate the electoral votes must go to who won the state and it's rare for someone to go against who won the state because the people chosen are usually party loyalists.

But the new idea of the electoral college is to give smaller states a say, I think it was NH that Democrats thought for sure they had in 2000 that ended up going for Bush that put Bush over the top to secure his victory. Ignoring the whole Florida fiasco for a moment, NH was really the pivotal state in 2000 and it only had 4 electoral votes.

Another part of the problem with how the electoral college turned out is all states decided to go with a majority take all approach, it wasn't until recently I think that Maine and Nebraska moved away from winner takes all. At this point now it's unlikely most states are going to move away from winner take all because if California for example does this first and no one else follows then it's going to really hurt Democrats' change of winning the presidency in the future, same with Texas and Republicans.

I don't think the electoral college is perfect but I prefer it over a simple majority vote.

[Androidpk]

It's somehow extra hilarious when Russia proves me right. Yeah.

you are a sad one trick pony

[Tgo01]

Or you'll take our ability to vote away and glory in the Russian American Coprosperity Sphere.

Yes. Wut?

[Warriorbird]

you are a sad one trick pony

So I say something, evidence proves me right, and you just ignore it. Got it.

[tacos]

I think the Electoral College should serve tacos in the cafeteria.

http://thinrecipes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Photo-Jan-28-11-24-24-AM.jpg

[Parkbandit]

So I say something, evidence proves me right, and you just ignore it. Got it.

Holy shit, when exactly did this happen?

[Gelston]

Holy shit, when exactly did this happen?

Russia admits it had "contact" with some Donald Trump "staffers". That is all they said.

[Androidpk]

So I say something, evidence proves me right, and you just ignore it. Got it.

You have zero evidence.

[Warriorbird]

You have zero evidence.

This is the bit where events happen, you fail to read anything on it, and you stuff your fingers in your ears and pretend they didn't happen. Typical.

[Androidpk]

This is the bit where events happen, you fail to read anything on it, and you stuff your fingers in your ears and pretend they didn't happen. Typical.

Stop projecting.

[Warriorbird]

Stop projecting.


Obviously, we know most of the people from his entourage. Those people have always been in the limelight in the United States and have occupied high-ranking positions. I cannot say that all of them but quite a few have been staying in touch with Russian representatives.

...yeah.

[Donquix]

What about Bush Sr? 40 states

Nixon, 49.

Eisenhower, 39 and 41.



My understanding is the purpose was the exact opposite; they didn't want a simple majority of voters to decide who would be president. The original idea was the electoral voters weren't bound to any one particular party and they would be entrusted to choose the best candidate, not necessarily who the people wanted. This is almost a forgone conclusion now since like half the states mandate the electoral votes must go to who won the state and it's rare for someone to go against who won the state because the people chosen are usually party loyalists.

But the new idea of the electoral college is to give smaller states a say, I think it was NH that Democrats thought for sure they had in 2000 that ended up going for Bush that put Bush over the top to secure his victory. Ignoring the whole Florida fiasco for a moment, NH was really the pivotal state in 2000 and it only had 4 electoral votes.

Another part of the problem with how the electoral college turned out is all states decided to go with a majority take all approach, it wasn't until recently I think that Maine and Nebraska moved away from winner takes all. At this point now it's unlikely most states are going to move away from winner take all because if California for example does this first and no one else follows then it's going to really hurt Democrats' change of winning the presidency in the future, same with Texas and Republicans.

I don't think the electoral college is perfect but I prefer it over a simple majority vote.

Yes marginal electoral college votes is an improvement. So you divide up states so they are worth X amount based on population and then further divide that vote based upon the margin of the vote...if there was only some system we could implement that would take this system to its most logical conclusion of each person's vote being weighted equally :D like each voter is worth say, 1 electoral vote...and whoever gets the most collegiate votes wins!

You're right that no system is perfect, but majority rule at least makes sense mathematically.

[Tgo01]

...yeah.

So "most people" from Trump's "entourage" have been "staying in touch" with "Russian representatives" = Trump and Putin are gay lovers and Trump is going to hand the US over to Russia?

Again, wut?

[Androidpk]

...yeah.

yes

[Thondalar]

It was the inverse when the system was founded, its job was to prevent the minority from voting for the majority. Now it is enabling that.

This is patently false. It was always designed to prevent the majority from voting for the minority. The entire reason it was created was because small states like MA, NH, VT, RI were worried that the larger States would effectively silence their vote under a true Democratic process.

The Founders considered several ideas, including a straight popular vote, letting the Senate choose the President, and letting the State legislators choose the president. Rightly so, these options were eventually removed from the table of possibilities. What they eventually agreed upon was the Electoral College, fashioned after the Roman Catholic College of Cardinals, or even further back, the Centurial Assembly of the Roman Republic.

The first option was quickly removed from the table, because of aforementioned concerns of the naturally oppressive nature of a completely Democratic system. The second and third options were removed based on very plausible and downright likely possibilities of easy corruption. This original system was designed before there was such a thing as "political parties" in the US, the idea of which many founders were against.

The 12th amendment, which I'm sure you're all very familiar with, attempted to deal with some of the issues that arose from the Electoral College plan with the advent of political parties...whether it was completely successful or not, who knows.

Is it a flawed system? Yep. Of course it is. You can't please 100% of the people 100% of the time. EVERY system has flaws. Is it the best anyone has been able to come up with so far on this planet? I think so.

[Thondalar]

You're right that no system is perfect, but majority rule at least makes sense mathematically.

"majority rule" is a terribly outdated system that invites subjugation of peoples. You're probably too young to remember the Hutus and Tootsis.

[Gelston]

Lol, someone is putting a change.org petition asking electors to not vote how they are pledged.

https://www.change.org/p/electoral-college-electors-electoral-college-make-hillary-clinton-president-on-december-19

I mean, there'd be epic riots if that ever happened. And justifiably so.

[Taernath]

"majority rule" is a terribly outdated system that invites subjugation of peoples. You're probably too young to remember the Hutus and Tootsis.

Genocide is not the natural endpoint of majority rule.

[Warriorbird]

Lol, someone is putting a change.org petition asking electors to not vote how they are pledged.

https://www.change.org/p/electoral-college-electors-electoral-college-make-hillary-clinton-president-on-december-19

I mean, there'd be epic riots if that ever happened. And justifiably so.

Not very likely to happen... though didn't some vote against George Wallace?

[Gelston]

Not very likely to happen... though didn't some vote against George Wallace?

I can guarantee a just about 0% chance of it happening, there are no secret ballots anymore and Electors belong to the party that won.

It has happened few times in history, usually not on purpose or because the candidate they were pledged for died or something.

[Warriorbird]

So "most people" from Trump's "entourage" have been "staying in touch" with "Russian representatives" = Trump and Putin are gay lovers and Trump is going to hand the US over to Russia?

Again, wut?

Were it a Democrat you'd be having a meltdown.

[Tgo01]

Were it a Democrat you'd be having a meltdown.

k

[Gelston]

k

L

[Thondalar]

Genocide is not the natural endpoint of majority rule.

It isn't?

[Androidpk]

Were it a Democrat you'd be having a meltdown.

Were it a democrat you wouldn't give a fuck.

[Warriorbird]

Were it a democrat you wouldn't give a fuck.

I see. So the implication here is that I'm shamelessly partisan because I'm troubled by a Russian dictator and his acolytes and a new President who owes money to some of them. If you're such a seeker of truth and non partisan why is it you only apply your gaze to Democrats?

[beldannon5]

My wifes family has pretty much told her they wont be her family because of me voting for Trump. Mind you i haven't condemned gays or Muslims or shown any hate. They talj about us hating but you have anti trump violence flag burning and riots going on

[Androidpk]

I see. So the implication here is that I'm shamelessly partisan because I'm troubled by a Russian dictator and his acolytes and a new President who owes money to some of them. If you're such a seeker of truth and non partisan why is it you only apply your gaze to Democrats?

I've never only applied my gaze to democrats.

Why weren't you troubled about Hillary's financial dealings with Russia and Saudi Arabia?

[Thondalar]

My wifes family has pretty much told her they wont be her family because of me voting for Trump. Mind you i haven't condemned gays or Muslims or shown any hate. They talj about us hating but you have anti trump violence flag burning and riots going on

I pointed this out earlier, as have many people. One side is BEING violent, one side is simply accused of it. Hmm.

[Warriorbird]

I've never only applied my gaze to democrats.

Why weren't you troubled about Hillary's financial dealings with Russia and Saudi Arabia?

So why exactly do you rationalize away anything Trump does?

I voted for Sanders. I'm backing some folks involved with an attempt at an intense DNC house cleaning. Unlike you, I didn't want to follow that up by messing up the country even worse. I'm far less bothered by somebody forcing problematic countries to donate to charity (whatever your spin is) than somebody who owes those countries hundreds of millions of dollars and used their hackers to swing an election while forwarding the proclaimed ideology of Alexsandr Dugin.


I pointed this out earlier, as have many people. One side is BEING violent, one side is simply accused of it. Hmm.

The first 100 days should be interesting.

[Androidpk]

I'm far less bothered by somebody forcing problematic countries to donate to charity (whatever your spin is) than somebody who owes those countries hundreds of millions of dollars and used their hackers to swing an election while forwarding the proclaimed ideology of Alexsandr Dugin.

Now you're just being absurd with your fringe left wing talking points.

[Warriorbird]

Now you're just being absurd with your fringe left wing talking points.

The statement of a man's son and the obvious evidence are hardly "fringe left wing talking points." Most of the further material comes from conservatives.

I get it though. You clearly think of Trump the way some people once thought about Obama. He absolutely can't do ANYTHING wrong!

[Gelston]

The statement of a man's son and the obvious evidence are hardly "fringe left wing talking points." Most of the further material comes from conservatives.

I get it though. You clearly think of Trump the way some people once thought about Obama. He absolutely can't do ANYTHING wrong!

I'm a man's son. I should make statements too.

[Androidpk]

The statement of a man's son and the obvious evidence are hardly "fringe left wing talking points." Most of the further material comes from conservatives.

I get it though. You clearly think of Trump the way some people once thought about Obama. He absolutely can't do ANYTHING wrong!

If that was the case I would have voted for Trump.

[Warriorbird]

I'm a man's son. I should make statements too.

Absolutely! The best statements.

[Warriorbird]

If that was the case I would have voted for Trump.

We have your body of work here in which you rationalize any possible Trump action. You naturally want to back the Libertarians for the weed and hypocrisy about accepting charity though.

[Androidpk]

We have your body of work here in which you rationalize any possible Trump action. You naturally want to back the Libertarians for the weed and hypocrisy about accepting charity though.

you keep making the same mistake of thinking criticism of Hillary = support for Trump

[Warriorbird]

you keep making the same mistake of thinking criticism of Hillary = support for Trump

Except I'm not even talking about that. I'm talking about your rationalizations of anything questionable Trump might've done.

[Androidpk]

Except I'm not even talking about that. I'm talking about your rationalizations of anything questionable Trump might've done.

Show me your evidence that Trump owes Putin hundreds of millions of dollars. Show me proof that he collaborated with Russian hackers to steal the election.

[Gelston]

I'm just going to pull the Liberal defense of "he wasn't indicted so he never committed a crime or did anything wrong."

[Warriorbird]

Show me your evidence that Trump owes Putin hundreds of millions of dollars. Show me proof that he collaborated with Russian hackers to steal the election.

Never said he owed PUTIN the money. Putin cronies that deal with the bank that Putin used as a front (revealed during Mossack Fonseca) is different than Russia.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/06/us/politics/donald-trump-soho-settlement.html

As for the rest? Why don't you believe it if Trump does?


By the way, they hacked -- they probably have her 33,000 e-mails. I hope they do. They probably have her 33,000 e-mails that she lost and deleted because you'd see some beauties there. So let's see.


I'm just going to pull the Liberal defense of "he wasn't indicted so he never committed a crime or did anything wrong."

He was indicted. He just bargained into a settlement by giving all the money back.

[Androidpk]

So what about the financial dealings with Russia and close ties to Saudi Arabia Podesta has? Why is it only bad for Trump but Hillary gets a free pass?

[Androidpk]

BTW the FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation is still going strong, with multiple state field offices devoting lots of resources into it.

[Warriorbird]

So what about the financial dealings with Russia and close ties to Saudi Arabia Podesta has? Why is it only bad for Trump but Hillary gets a free pass?

Podesta and Blumenthal are slime. Political operatives typically are. Why do you only question Democratic operatives?

Hmm...

[beldannon5]

I got some negative rep because I said i voted for trump. Seriously? Sigh such hate from the democrats :)

[Androidpk]

Podesta and Blumenthal are slime. Political operatives typically are. Why do you only question Democratic operatives?

Hmm...

I heavily criticized Lewandoski. I've never once only questioned Democrats. My posting history on this forum is filled with me bashing both parties. Yes, this election cycle I focused my energy solely on HRC because I perceived her to be the bigger threat to this country. Now that the Clintons are *finally* out of the picture I'll be turning my attention to Trump's presidency.

[Warriorbird]

I heavily criticized Lewandoski. I've never once only questioned Democrats. My posting history on this forum is filled with me bashing both parties. Yes, this election cycle I focused my energy solely on HRC because I perceived her to be the bigger threat to this country. Now that the Clintons are *finally* out of the picture I'll be turning my attention to Trump's presidency.

I'll be looking forward to it.

[SpiffyJr]

Wasn't able to check back in until now but I wanted to thank everyone for the info.

[Latrinsorm]

My understanding is the purpose was the exact opposite; they didn't want a simple majority of voters to decide who would be president.Close. They didn't want voters to decide who would be President, at all, under any circumstances, ever. The Presidency was too important to let the people decide, so it was entirely based on the whims of the political elite. This same sentiment to a lesser degree is what made the Founding Fathers have the United States Senate elected by state legislatures. There's a reason the House of Representatives is called Representative and literally nothing else in the federal government is - nothing else was ever intended to Represent what the people wanted.

Obviously this doesn't stop populists of all stripes from recalling the Founding Fathers as non politicians, as paragons of the True Democracy that has since become corrupted. My advice is don't start laughing about this utterly hilarious error, you probably won't be able to stop until you throw up.

[Tgo01]

Close. They didn't want voters to decide who would be President, at all, under any circumstances, ever.

Well, I mean yeah, sort of. The people indirectly vote for president by voting for the electors. If the founding fathers didn't want the people involved at all they would have just skipped having people vote altogether.

But the reason they came up with the electoral college system is because they didn't want the presidency decided by a simple majority of voters. You know I'm right, just admit. Say it. SAY IT!

[Latrinsorm]

Well, I mean yeah, sort of. The people indirectly vote for president by voting for the electors. If the founding fathers didn't want the people involved at all they would have just skipped having people vote altogether.They did. Did you know voter turnout for the Presidential election didn't even pass 1% until 1800? That it didn't pass 10% until 1832? You might respond that suffrage was drastically different back then - HELLO! HELLO, MCFLY! That's exactly what I've been saying! The people didn't "indirectly" do crap. They got told who their Senators and President would be by political elites, period. This is the golden age today's populists hearken back to, and the people eat it up hook line and sinker.

Say what you will about my benevolent dictatorship leanings, at least I don't lie to your face about them.

[Tgo01]

The people didn't "indirectly" do crap.

They didn't vote for electors back then? Interesting. Source?

[Latrinsorm]

They didn't vote for electors back then? Interesting. Source?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1788%E2%80%93 89#Results_by_state

[Tgo01]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1788%E2%80%93 89#Results_by_state

I see 40k popular votes there.

[Soulance]

My wifes family has pretty much told her they wont be her family because of me voting for Trump. Mind you i haven't condemned gays or Muslims or shown any hate. They talj about us hating but you have anti trump violence flag burning and riots going on
If they feel that way then you're much better off without them.

[Soulance]

Yes, this election cycle I focused my energy solely on HRC because I perceived her to be the bigger threat to this country. Now that the Clintons are *finally* out of the picture I'll be turning my attention to Trump's presidency.
This...right here ^^

[Soulance]

They did. Did you know voter turnout for the Presidential election didn't even pass 1% until 1800? That it didn't pass 10% until 1832?

It still takes them forever to tally votes and we have cars and other transportation.

They had to walk or ride their buggies into town to vote and it'd probably take months to get the votes brought to the Capitol if it'd even make it.

[Latrinsorm]

I see 40k popular votes there.Wouldn't be the first time you've seen only what confirms your pre-existing bias. ;D
It still takes them forever to tally votes and we have cars and other transportation. They had to walk or ride their buggies into town to vote and it'd probably take months to get the votes brought to the Capitol if it'd even make it.And yet inauguration day was in March of the following year until the 20th century. It wasn't a practical concern of not being able to count votes in time. We know this because multiple states didn't even bother to count the votes at all, and the Founding Fathers smiled and nodded upon them.

[Tgo01]

Wouldn't be the first time you've seen only what confirms your pre-existing bias.

I specifically asked you for a time when voters didn't vote for electors who would then go on to vote for president, you provide a link showing 40k people voting for electors to do exactly what I described.

Are you feeling okay, Latrin? I worry about your health.