Democrats, ready to get rid of the Electoral College yet?

People probably mocked you for the manner in which you made the argument. Right here in this OP, for example, we can mock you for implying that you've been a wolf in the wilderness on this issue. But you weren't, not even at Wordforge.

Usually the argument for keeping the EC takes two forms: it's important; it's too hard to fix. I'll address the second first.

Too Hard to Fix
This is the misguided perception that only an amendment can eliminate the distortions caused by the EC, but that is not so. States can and do write their own rules about how their votes are apportioned. A state could, for example, pass a law requiring that all electors from that state vote for the national popular vote winner, regardless of how the state voted. They could further specify that such a rule is only in effect when states that collectively represent an EC majority have enacted such laws. Boom, problem solved. And there is an active movement in state legislatures favoring this idea.

It's Important
This is the notion that small states need protection against being overwhelmed by large states. The notion is wrong. Look at the maps from the past several elections. Some large states have been red, some large states have been blue. It was a valid concern when there were thirteen states, and two of them might have held half the population. It's no longer a true issue. Now, instead, the EC places tremendous emphasis on a few tipping point states, completely ignoring the rest. I see this as a much bigger problem than the one that the Framers intended to address.

So, the EC is not a good idea, and it's not hard to fix. And fuck elections that rest on a handful of states when people vote in all fifty.

Just the same old complaint that equality for all is a bad thing for people who currently hold more power. It would be refreshing if he at least admitted the issue.

There are more states for which this is true of Republican dominance. So what is it with you? Lying? Or just stupid?

Dude, wipe the froth from your mouth and learn to read. I'm not talking about the Constitution as a whole but the Electoral College. I'm also well aware of why that hasn't been modernized.

Just saying it's an overly complicated relic from 200 years ago. Not only that, it's also highly unfair to voters who backed the 'losing' side if it actually won but didn't. It is, after all, a president for all Americans so it's just logical the absolute number of votes should count. Just warps ones mind when a few swing states decide pretty much everything for everyone.

Ah, the left.

You sound like Dinner. Everyone who disagrees with him is "angry", while you are "frothing."

Saying something doesn't make it true. How sad you think these liberal playbook techniques work. You may rant and swear less since the days of Martok, but you really haven't matured or grown a bit, have you?

How's this?: Cass, calm down !
Grow up.
Smile. : )
There is hope in America once again. : D We dumped the novelty, and are trying the nut.

I was with you until your crack at "lefties," however the reverse is also true. The electoral college may be a good compromise precisely because both sides are unhappy with it, just at different times.

Regarding garamet's discomfort for being counted "less" than a person living in North Dakota or Vermont, wouldn't the solution be to increase the number of electoral votes for other states until the ratio was the same? Isn't this part of the reason for the census?

The quotes are out of sync, but I follow.

The crack about the lefties I can resist, but generally not when posting at WF, where any civil replies or those without any troll meat are ignored. I'm not typing for my health here you know. And I think we agree, in substance, that the EC basically serves the purpose for which designed.

As to reform, things probably aren't bad enough, an essential ingredient to any real reform. And as to the purpose of the decennial census, well, shit, that's a population of government workers with a mandate that's vastly exceeded the original intent or any legitimate government purpose -count the white latins and the hispanic latins separately and keep track of overlap, how many blacks, how many Asians, Native Americans?, etc. etc.. Basically we spend millions to differentiate for no useful purpose whatsoever. We get no value from the labels (maybe some warm and fuzzies?). But, yes, it did used to have something to do with allocating electorals.

Anna, if you didn't have tits you'd be useless.

I hope someone gets use of them.

I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

Again, look at the list of states that have signed on to that plan so far. They're the ones who are likely to gain (or, at least, not lose) from such a plan. You won't see any small states signing on to it.

You'll also likely have challenges to the law as it's likely to result in all electoral votes in a state being given to the candidate the voters of that state DIDN'T choose. Imagine that Trump won the popular vote (could've happened--he's only down 0.1-0.2%) and Hillary narrowly won the electoral vote (ElectionProjection.com had her winning 279 to 259). With all the gnashing of teeth and hand-ringing going on now, do you think any blue state would actually follow through and hand the election to Trump? The INSTANT this scheme could flip the election to the candidate preferred by the smaller states, there would be a race to revise the rules after the contest was run.

You decry the influence of a handful of states, but your "fix" would make that problem worse, not better.

Wow, I got Daytoned there. I don't know how Aurora ended up in the quote stream. Fixed now.

Things can't get "bad enough" to reform the EC because it's not a bad system. What, are Democrats too fucking stupid to realize they have to campaign in several states?

Also note that three days ago the Democrats were all about the EC, 100%, and per posting gloating predictions of how Hillary would crush Donald in the EC. She utterly failed and now they're all running around screaming "It's unfair!!!! It's unfair!!!!" Maybe she should have held a press conference sometime in the last year. Maybe she shouldn't have been so freakin' greedy when she was Secretary of State. Maybe she should have followed the simple rules for the handling of classified information like everybody else in government. Maybe she should have kept her husband from assaulting so many bimbos.

But no, she couldn't do any of that.

No, but two elections in recent memory come to down to watching the votes come in from a few counties in Florida and a few other 'battlegrounds' and it's not a far leap for a viewer to feel somehow disenfranchised - like their vote counts less - even if they got a chance to participate (especially the histrionic, see, e.g. chup, nova, 14 doc, and good god where's liet gone to?, hope he's ok).

When you have a cross-eyed balding man staring at your chad, you have totally fucked up. Do not envy those people.

I think rather than scrapping the EC, it should be modified as follows:
- Have states split their EC votes based on Congressional district (Nebraska and Maine already do this)--this avoids the "winner take all" mentality that can lead to Popular Vote winners losing the EC. Do this for ALL states. Imagine how much more balanced things might be when Cali and NY aren't always entirely Blue, and Texas isn't always entirely Red.
- Have the PV winner for each state receive 2 additional EC votes representing each state's Senate positions. A small bonus for carrying a state.

I'd be really interested to see how the past few elections would've turned out under such a scenario.

The reason voters don't vote for Republicans in this state isn't because of any conspiracy. It is because the Republican Party absolutely failed to deliver what the voters of this state wanted so they got voted out. We are tge least gerrymandered state in the union with the way voting disctricts are drawn. The state Republican spent a decade thrown tantrums and trying to shut down the state government so voters sent their worthless asses home and told them not to come back.

There is a lesson there for the national parties. Actually start delivering what voters want or lose elections.

The only person I have called angry in recent memory is you and no one else. I stand by that. You are an angry person.

You should try to find out why you are always so angry and realize it is because of you and not other people.

CNN is predicting Trump will win the popular vote as well...

http://edition.cnn.com/election/results

Off the top of my head, I kinda like this idea, but I'd have to give it more thought.

However, I think this would almost certainly disadvantage the blue states, and so I imagine they'd be against it.

You're wrong, I've seen it elsewhere, but don't care enough to pursue.

But you're right that I'm angry that you are such a useless shitstain and yet, a couple of tokes and that too is forgotten.

And in RL I'm good.

Popcorned, because I'm not entirely sure blue states would be disadvantaged by this as they tend to be concentrated in urban areas and typically carry their states (often making the rural portions unhappy).

Looks like they've only counted 80% of Utah. Once it became clear that he absolutely crushed her there, everybody must have gone home to watch Osmond reruns. Arizona is also only 76% in.

So he needs to make up 313,000 votes.

He'll close the gap somewhat with an additional 27,000 in Arizona, 38,000 in Utah, 17,500 in Georgia, 29,000 in Ohio, 12,500 in West Virginia, 15,500 in South Carolina, 11,000 is Mississippi, 16,000 in Indiana, 5,000 in Montana, 11,500 in Alaska, 10,000 in Kansas, 34,000 in Missouri, which is 227,000 more votes for Trump over Hillary.

I didn't count all the 99% states, and probably missed a few, but indeed he might pass her.

That means he certainly won handily when illegal aliens and dead people aren't counted in the total.

You'd probably have to model it based on past election results to see what the effect was. It might not change anything, but maybe people would feel better about it?

Regarding the Electoral College, imagine if instead of getting rid or it, or changing it, it's just left exactly as it is & then ported down to the Governor, Senator, & Congressperson levels?

Think of what a nightmare it would be if you had Electoral Colleges for every Governor, Senate, & Congress Election, in addition to the President?

** UGH! **

My heads exploding just at the very thought of that scenario.


I purposely left out Mayor!

Not sure about that. The main effect would be to reduce the effect of clusters of voters.

So taking Illinois as an example...it is traditionally a Democratic state. Roughly HALF of it's congressional districts are clustered around the Chicago area. Makes sense, due to population. So in the most recent election, instead of 20 EV, Hillary would have likely won the 9 districts around Chicago, with Trump winning the more rural areas. But because of her base of population and heavy %age lead in the areas that voted for her, she'd likely also win the state's PV, gaining her 2 more EV. Okay, so 11 vs 20 is a hit, true.

But now think of Texas, which generally goes Republican. Hillary could easily expect to win the Southern and coastal areas of Texas, plus a couple of the more urban districts around Dallas and Austin. So instead of 0 EV, she'd get maybe 7-9 EV out of Texas.

Apply this across the entire country. Metro areas in the South swing more Democratic, so they pick up more EVs from there. More rural areas in the Northeast give Republicans more EVs from there.
Maybe it hurts the Dems more overall, maybe not. I don't think it's clear either way, necessarily.

The problem is that (1) it requires a huge deal of cooperation to pass such an amendment, and our country is severely lacking in cooperation at the moment; and (2) as @Paladin correctly pointed out, voting to end/modify the electoral college goes against the self-interests of many of the smaller states (which outnumber the bigger states).

Honestly though, getting rid of the electoral college would not get rid of our two-party system, where we're forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. That would require a significant overhaul in other parts of our electoral system. Studies have shown that those systems which are (a) parliamentary, and (b) based on proportional representation, tend to gravitate towards a true multi-party system. Those systems which are (a) presidential, and (b) based on "first-past-the-post" elections, tend to gravitate toward a two-party system.

Also, not sure if this has been posted yet, but:

Maryland sidesteps electoral college
ANNAPOLIS, Md. — Maryland officially became the first state on Tuesday to approve a plan to give its electoral votes for president to the winner of the national popular vote instead of the candidate chosen by state voters. Gov. Martin O'Malley, a Democrat, signed the measure into law, one day after the state's General Assembly adjourned. The measure would award Maryland's 10 electoral votes to the national popular vote winner. The plan would only take effect if states representing a majority of the nation's 538 electoral votes decided to make the same change.

This would not have had an effect this election, because Maryland went for Clinton anyway.