Electoral College

[Gustaf]

In 2000, a vote in Wyoming counted 3 times as much as a vote in New York.  That goes against the principles of Democracy if you ask me.

It makes perfect sense in the context of a federal system. The question is whether the US should really be one.

[© tweed]

In 2000, a vote in Wyoming counted 3 times as much as a vote in New York.  That goes against the principles of Democracy if you ask me.

It makes perfect sense in the context of a federal system. The question is whether the US should really be one.

Again-I don't understand what you are trying to say.

[Gustaf]

In 2000, a vote in Wyoming counted 3 times as much as a vote in New York.  That goes against the principles of Democracy if you ask me.

It makes perfect sense in the context of a federal system. The question is whether the US should really be one.

Again-I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Language barriers...

If you have a union, the member states are supposedly political units who have agree to join. This is obviously not beneficial to smaller states, since they will have little influence on the decisions and be subject to influence instead. So in order to convince them you have to give them an unproportional amount of power. This is logical.

[dazzleman]

The point is that every state gets certain benefits in the union just because of being a state, without regard to population.

Each state gets 2 senators and therefore 2 electoral votes, regardless of population.  Therefore, small states get more of a voice in terms of population than larger ones.

Each state has an equal say in changing the constitution, with ratification from 3/4 of the state legislatures required.  Therefore, Utah or Wyoming has the same amount of say as New York or California in determining whether a constitutional amendment is ratified, once it passes through congress, during which the bigger states will have more say because they have more representatives in the House.

These are the hallmarks of a federal system, in which each state is considered a separate unit within the system.  Without a federal system, these benefits allocated on the basis of just being a state would go away, and everything would presumably be strictly proportional.

The US was designed to be a federal system, although it has become less so during the past 70 years.  But I see no chance that the smaller states will voluntarily give up the advantages that the constitution has given them, so I think the US will continue to be a federal system.

Should it be?  I would say yes, for a number of reasons.  I don't think we should change our whole constitution, which would be required to drop the federal system.  I fear giving greater power over local affairs to the federal government, because in my experience the federal government is far away, difficult to influence, and can generally only mess things up.  Local government, close to the people, is most responsive to the people's needs in most cases, and the states need to have a degree of independence to make this work.

It's true that some of the state borders have become somewhat arbitrary, and there is less of a sense than in the past of being a resident of a certain state, rather than of the nation as a whole.  But I see no crying need to upset the apple cart to the extent that would be necessary in order to change the federal system.

[Gustaf]

Decentralization is a different issue, giving voters living in one place more influence than others can ONLY be justified if you view it as different political units, which has the choice of being independent states.  

[© tweed]

In 2000, a vote in Wyoming counted 3 times as much as a vote in New York.  That goes against the principles of Democracy if you ask me.

It makes perfect sense in the context of a federal system. The question is whether the US should really be one.

Again-I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Language barriers...

If you have a union, the member states are supposedly political units who have agree to join. This is obviously not beneficial to smaller states, since they will have little influence on the decisions and be subject to influence instead. So in order to convince them you have to give them an unproportional amount of power. This is logical.

Okay, I get it...
But still, Wyoming isn't going to form an independent nation.

[Gustaf]

In 2000, a vote in Wyoming counted 3 times as much as a vote in New York.  That goes against the principles of Democracy if you ask me.

It makes perfect sense in the context of a federal system. The question is whether the US should really be one.

Again-I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Language barriers...

If you have a union, the member states are supposedly political units who have agree to join. This is obviously not beneficial to smaller states, since they will have little influence on the decisions and be subject to influence instead. So in order to convince them you have to give them an unproportional amount of power. This is logical.

Okay, I get it...
But still, Wyoming isn't going to form an independent nation.

No, that is exactly what I think. Since you are not really a union made up of Wyomingans or Rhode Islanders, or whatever you would call these people, but one nation of Americans, I think the system should be scrapped. I am just pointing out what I beleieve is the only true argument in favour of the current system. Otherwise it doesn't make sense.

[© tweed]

In 2000, a vote in Wyoming counted 3 times as much as a vote in New York.  That goes against the principles of Democracy if you ask me.

It makes perfect sense in the context of a federal system. The question is whether the US should really be one.

Again-I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Language barriers...

If you have a union, the member states are supposedly political units who have agree to join. This is obviously not beneficial to smaller states, since they will have little influence on the decisions and be subject to influence instead. So in order to convince them you have to give them an unproportional amount of power. This is logical.

Okay, I get it...
But still, Wyoming isn't going to form an independent nation.

No, that is exactly what I think. Since you are not really a union made up of Wyomingans or Rhode Islanders, or whatever you would call these people, but one nation of Americans, I think the system should be scrapped. I am just pointing out what I beleieve is the only true argument in favour of the current system. Otherwise it doesn't make sense.

Okay then...
Being from NY, a healily populated state (especially the area I live in), it bothers me when I thing I could go out to the mountain west and my vote would matter 3x as much in deciding the president.

[Gustaf]

In 2000, a vote in Wyoming counted 3 times as much as a vote in New York.  That goes against the principles of Democracy if you ask me.

It makes perfect sense in the context of a federal system. The question is whether the US should really be one.

Again-I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Language barriers...

If you have a union, the member states are supposedly political units who have agree to join. This is obviously not beneficial to smaller states, since they will have little influence on the decisions and be subject to influence instead. So in order to convince them you have to give them an unproportional amount of power. This is logical.

Okay, I get it...
But still, Wyoming isn't going to form an independent nation.

No, that is exactly what I think. Since you are not really a union made up of Wyomingans or Rhode Islanders, or whatever you would call these people, but one nation of Americans, I think the system should be scrapped. I am just pointing out what I beleieve is the only true argument in favour of the current system. Otherwise it doesn't make sense.

Okay then...
Being from NY, a healily populated state (especially the area I live in), it bothers me when I thing I could go out to the mountain west and my vote would matter 3x as much in deciding the president.

Well, I agree! It is not as bad as in the EU, though our system is really weird. Poland and Spain together, for example, have twice the votes of Germany, but slightly smaller population.

[minionofmidas]

The EC should have been scrapped after the civil war as far as the federal/national argument goes...That's when Americans started talking of the Nation rather than the Union.
Then again so few Germans are really interested in who actually won where (outside their immediate home area), maybe the fact that this forum and atlas exist should be considered a valid argument for the preservation of the Electoral College...

[nutball]

The US was never intended to be a democracy. It is a system designed to balance the benefits of democracy (representative government) against the dangers of democracy (mob rule). Democracy is not a panacea, it does not solve all the problems of politics.

The American political system in general was designed to be imperfect, to exist in a state of continuous tension. The electoral college is just one aspect of this. The thinking, as I take it, being, that a political system will always tend towards corruption and abuse of power. The only way to check this is to place those centers of power in opposition to eachother so that they are, to a certain extent, always attacking eachother. When they agree, they consolidate and become corrupt.

The framers trusted the individual, but distrusted the concentration of power. A majority can be a mob. A mob can be a concentration of power which acts against the interests of the individual (or the few). An individual can be a criminal who acts against the interest of the common good. These things need to be put in opposition so they can mediate eachother. This is what I think is embodied (albeit on a larger scale) in the Electoral college. It is exactly and intentionally a compromise to prevent the most dramatic abuses of power.

[© tweed]

I think that the electoral college is unfair. I don't think direct popular vote is necessarily the best option, however. There are many ways to reform the current system. One that I like is the idea of giving the popular vote winner a bonus of a certain number of electors. For example 45.

That always throws the election to the PV winner, there will never be a 45EV gap.

[Gustaf]

I think that the electoral college is unfair. I don't think direct popular vote is necessarily the best option, however. There are many ways to reform the current system. One that I like is the idea of giving the popular vote winner a bonus of a certain number of electors. For example 45.

That always throws the election to the PV winner, there will never be a 45EV gap.

There could be, in theory...but most likely the winner of the popular vote will almost always win the EV, and if not, lose by a small margin.

[Gustaf]

No wait! In 1888 Grover Cleveland won the PV 48.62% v 47.82% but lost the EV 168-233. So he would still lose the election with McFarlan's system.

[??????????]

Which system do you prefer?

I prefer the EC as it is the method intended by the Founders. The reason I believe this is the best system is because it gives all states a FAIR voice. I live in a large state but I dont want NYC, LA or Chicago deciding my president. Remember we are a Union of States not Counties of the Federal Govt.

[zachman]

I agree with StatesRights there, I have still not made up my mind on the poll. I think the system should have been designed without the electoral college and the 3/5th compromise, so that every vote was equal. I think the system has its purpose, as does the foreign born president provision, and should not be changed.

When the EC does flaw it is a problem, and that should never happen. What does amaze me was Bush's press campaign in November 2000, to fool people into thinking that Gore lost the popular vote, fortunately that took care of Gore though.

I'm also surprised that with the solid south at the turn of the last century that the democrats never won enormously in the popular vote but lost in the EC. Was turnout ever high in the south, during those times?

[??????????]

I'm also surprised that with the solid south at the turn of the last century that the democrats never won enormously in the popular vote but lost in the EC. Was turnout ever high in the south, during those times?

I couldnt tell you about turnout, but from what I've read about post war election activities is that they were absolutely a mess. Any election between 1860-1872 I would consider highly questionable on the results. Voter fraud ran rampant in the south after the war. Even if you read on this website some southern states EC votes werent even counted .. and thats AFTER they were re-admitted. Though how they could be re-admitted when Lincoln said they never left in the first place is beyond me. But thats another subject. I dont know if you could really look anywhere for true turnout numbers but if anyone would have any links or paper sources I would be curious to take a look.

BTW some of the Voter Fraud committed from the 1850s-1880s would make the Bush - Gore 2000 mess look harmless. LOL. The dead shall rise again, twice or three or four times. That was the motto of some elections (or should have been). Edgar Allen Poe was filled with alcohol and was forced to vote up to five times in Baltimore the day before he died.

[minionofmidas]

No nineteenth century election results can be taken exactly at face value, not only in the US. "Vote Early and Often" was meant entirely seriously...
But the Electoral College as functioning now is not what the Framers had in mind.
They never heard of well-organised national parties.
They never heard of the revolutions in transport technology that made proportional elections and all that came after feasible.
Electors were never supposed to be elected en bloc, and electing them by popular vote was merely one option open to the states.
The framers were quite certain that after Washington nobody would receive a majority of electoral votes, and the presidency was supposed to be decided by the House, with the states, via the electors, effectively drawing up a shortlist of five candidates. The candidate to get the highest total of electors was to be vice-president, a post invented purely for the purpose of enabling this compromise with those who wanted the states to chose.
Given the many defacto changes (and one major official change in 1808) to constitutional reality, "the framers made it like this with a reason" is not an argument to be taken quite seriously.

[??????????]

[No nineteenth century election results can be taken exactly at face value, not only in the US. "Vote Early and Often" was meant entirely seriously...]

True but even more so during the Civil War and Reconstruction because of the way the North treated the South and the way things were administered.

[But the Electoral College as functioning now is not what the Framers had in mind.]

True, in the sense of the "winner-take-all" method. Although a elector could still go rogue if he/she wanted to. (God help that person)

[They never heard of well-organised national parties.]

During Washingtons' administration this is true. Washington was firmly against political parties. But as soon as he left office the Federalist and Anti-Federalist parties formed and the members were framers of the Constitution.

[They never heard of the revolutions in transport technology that made proportional elections and all that came after feasible.]

100% Correct.

[The framers were quite certain that after Washington nobody would receive a majority of electoral votes, and the presidency was supposed to be decided by the House, with the states, via the electors, effectively drawing up a shortlist of five candidates. The candidate to get the highest total of electors was to be vice-president, a post invented purely for the purpose of enabling this compromise with those who wanted the states to chose.]

No argument there.

[Given the many defacto changes (and one major official change in 1808) to constitutional reality, "the framers made it like this with a reason" is not an argument to be taken quite seriously.]

There you're wrong. As I've stated before the framers created this system to balance the large states with the small states. If it went strictly by popular vote, then the large cities would be the only ones whos vote would actually count because they would decide the election. The framers were genuis when it came to checks and balances, the House and Senate are another example of balancing Large and Small states (Senate).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[zachman]

I was talking about the solid southern elections from about 1888-1948 turnout was often 1/20 of a state's population.

[??????????]

I was talking about the solid southern elections from about 1888-1948 turnout was often 1/20 of a state's population.

Some observations from Democrats that lived then mostly in the 20-40s a few I have talked to were raised by their parents that the Republicans are the party of Lincoln and Lincoln caused the grief and poverty that the south was going through well into the 1930s.  I havent studied the exact numbers of how many went out and voted, this is just what I understand from a few of our older citizens I have chatted with. Also the Democrats in those days were the Conservative party. It's since changed.

[minionofmidas]

[They never heard of well-organised national parties.]

During Washingtons' administration this is true. Washington was firmly against political parties. But as soon as he left office the Federalist and Anti-Federalist parties formed and the members were framers of the Constitution.

Even before he left office, actually, though they took a few years to consolidate. It's beside the point though, as they only heard of organized national parties after the constitution was framed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True. At that time, of course, three states, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Virginia, held almost 50% of the US population, a situation that has never occurred again.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No...The majority of the US population does not live in large scities and has never done so. If it went strictly by Popular Vote, everybody's vote has the same weight. It doesn't matter one bit whether you're in the majority in your area or not, so it doesn' teven make any sense (except for us statistics freaks) of talking about a city or state or region voting for a certain candidate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They were humans. They did a remarkable job, an absolutely extraordinary one given how little examples from elsewhere they could draw on, but not a perfect one. Otherwise there wouldn't be any need for amendments, no clauses that are more or less ignored, no gigantic body of unofficial quasi-constitutional stuff in laws, court decisions and precedent.

I agree that the EC with the small states bonus is better than the EC without it. That would really give too much importance to the major states, and make the small states irrelevant.
But apart from that, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that last paragraph of yours.

[??????????]

Look at the 2000 Election for example. Gore won the populuar vote by just winning large cities but hardly any of the heart of the country. I mean not just city limits but the cities and usually the counties that surrounded the city. For example Gore won Maryland, but the only counties he won where Montgomery, Prince Georges, Baltimore County and Baltimore City. The rest of the state went for Bush. Oh and just as a mention, I keep getting tired of mentioning at my work place that Bush was not the only president to not win the popular vote and win the election. People that keep saying that think it proves some kind of "Bush stole the election" conspiracy theory.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Actually some of Gore's best counties were rural

[dunn]

Actually some of Gore's best counties were rural

Macon co. AL - 86.8% for Gore
Shanon co. SD -85.36% "

but it's Afro Americam )AL) and Native American (SD) counties. the others were cities.
Bush won the counties 4 to 1 but America is not rural anymore