Abolition of the electoral college
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 10:36:42 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  Abolition of the electoral college
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Poll
Question: When, in your opinion, will the electoral college be abolished?
#1
by 2020
#2
by 2030
#3
by 2040
#4
by 2050
#5
at a later date
#6
never
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results


Author Topic: Abolition of the electoral college  (Read 7270 times)
greenforest32
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,625


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 18, 2011, 08:31:44 AM »

Hard to predict. I think it will depend on there being a certain political mood in the country (kind of like the era of EPA and all that environmental regulation). I don't think it will be gone by 2020 but I wouldn't be surprised to see the national popular vote compact adopted before the EC rightfully kicks the bucket.

Also this thread is weird. Where is the thread starter's first post?
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,097
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 18, 2011, 08:34:38 AM »

Never
Logged
Duke David
Atheist2006
Rookie
**
Posts: 240
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 18, 2011, 08:47:57 AM »

Also this thread is weird. Where is the thread starter's first post?

LOL

I'm asking that question myself.
The moderators seem to leave no doubt that they hate me. Wink
Logged
Duke David
Atheist2006
Rookie
**
Posts: 240
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 18, 2011, 08:50:38 AM »


Tiny states like Nebraska benefit from the disproportional allocation of the electoral votes, of course...
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 18, 2011, 09:01:20 AM »


Depends really. You'd need another 2000-like case for it to be possible. And even then it might not happen.

Unlikely in my lifetime, I'd say.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,097
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 18, 2011, 11:28:58 AM »


Tiny states like Nebraska benefit from the disproportional allocation of the electoral votes, of course...
And we've past laws to take away that advantage, if the big states did the same this would cease to be an issue.  But they don't.  Why?  Because it would, ironically, make them less important in Presidential elections.
Logged
greenforest32
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,625


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 18, 2011, 11:53:27 AM »


Tiny states like Nebraska benefit from the disproportional allocation of the electoral votes, of course...
And we've past laws to take away that advantage, if the big states did the same this would cease to be an issue.  But they don't.  Why?  Because it would, ironically, make them less important in Presidential elections.

Eh? The real benefitters (sp?) of the electoral college are the swing states. The big states should get more attention as they have more people, but since the Electoral College elects the president rather than the popular vote candidates spend most of their time in swing states.

How do you think Republicans in California or Democrats in Texas feel? You think they approve of the electoral college? Nope.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,097
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 18, 2011, 01:18:53 PM »

Of course.  But my point still stands.  Nebraska (and Maine) have made changes to take away much of the (marginal) advantage small states have.  The bigger states could make these changes too, but they don't. 

But yes, the real "winners" under the electoral college system are the mid sized swing states.
Logged
Duke David
Atheist2006
Rookie
**
Posts: 240
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 18, 2011, 01:36:08 PM »

Of course.  But my point still stands.  Nebraska (and Maine) have made changes to take away much of the (marginal) advantage small states have.  The bigger states could make these changes too, but they don't. 

But yes, the real "winners" under the electoral college system are the mid sized swing states.

The reason Nebraska splits its electoral votes is its function as a stronghold.

Its government wanted both the GOP and the Dems to campaign in Nebraska.
Logged
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 18, 2011, 03:07:43 PM »

Let's be real honest people:

Do you really think this nation would be around long enough to see such reform happen?
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 18, 2011, 06:52:31 PM »

I wish, as I've sort of come around on this issue lately. But I seriously doubt it will happen in my lifetime, at least.
Logged
Napoleon
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,892


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 18, 2011, 10:47:28 PM »

I hate this conversation. The electoral college is the least of ours worries. We have fptp, gerrymandering, and awful campaign finance laws and we choose to focus on this?
Logged
Fritz
JLD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,668
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 18, 2011, 11:43:52 PM »

If the interstate compact rendering the EC irrelevant ever becomes enacted, the country might- maybe, someday- go ahead and make it official.
Logged
greenforest32
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,625


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 19, 2011, 12:35:05 AM »

I hate this conversation. The electoral college is the least of ours worries. We have fptp, gerrymandering, and awful campaign finance laws and we choose to focus on this?

It's probably because it's the easiest to fix. Doesn't mean we can't focus on all those at once.
Logged
Napoleon
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,892


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 19, 2011, 01:05:21 AM »

I hate this conversation. The electoral college is the least of ours worries. We have fptp, gerrymandering, and awful campaign finance laws and we choose to focus on this?

It's probably because it's the easiest to fix. Doesn't mean we can't focus on all those at once.

It is easy to fix if it isn't a real problem...I think bitterness about 2000 is way overstated and that the EC is an easy targets because it feels undemocratic. It is also a fix that is far less likely to change anything than the reforms I mentioned would.
Logged
greenforest32
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,625


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 19, 2011, 01:43:30 AM »
« Edited: September 19, 2011, 01:50:32 AM by greenforest32 »

I hate this conversation. The electoral college is the least of ours worries. We have fptp, gerrymandering, and awful campaign finance laws and we choose to focus on this?

It's probably because it's the easiest to fix. Doesn't mean we can't focus on all those at once.

It is easy to fix if it isn't a real problem...I think bitterness about 2000 is way overstated and that the EC is an easy targets because it feels undemocratic. It is also a fix that is far less likely to change anything than the reforms I mentioned would.

I am not disputing that. I'd like to change them all. We haven't had any real electoral reform in decades.

And the electoral college did enable the Supreme Court to stop the Florida recount and hand Bush the Presidency in 2000. Certainly we could have done things better before that point (a better campaign and called for recounts right away), but it was still an option for them to use and they did.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 19, 2011, 12:52:52 PM »

Let's be real honest people:

Do you really think this nation would be around long enough to see such reform happen?
The Electoral College would not survive if America does not.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 19, 2011, 08:58:50 PM »
« Edited: September 19, 2011, 09:46:01 PM by Torie »

One little concern I have is this sort of LSD-like flashback, where Bush v Gore involves every precinct across the Fruited Plain.  Just a thought.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: September 20, 2011, 04:36:12 AM »

One little concern I have is this sort of LSD-like flashback, where Bush v Gore involves every precinct across the Fruited Plain.  Just a thought.

The probability of such an event is inflated by any random swing state being able to change the overall outcome.

Without the EC...2000 would have been no problem. Of course...if it is very close nationally, then we're in deep trouble. And we'd need nationwide election standards, of course.
Logged
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: September 20, 2011, 05:36:32 AM »

Let's be real honest people:

Do you really think this nation would be around long enough to see such reform happen?
The Electoral College would not survive if America does not.

It isn't called reform if everybody is dead Lewis.

Unless you're a Nazi Fascist.
[/Godwin]
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: September 20, 2011, 03:23:54 PM »

Also this thread is weird. Where is the thread starter's first post?

LOL

I'm asking that question myself.
The moderators seem to leave no doubt that they hate me. Wink

Don't ask me how it happened.  But since I try to meet expectations unless I have a reason not to, I'll be certain to hate you from now on. Cool
Logged
lowtech redneck
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 273
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: September 22, 2011, 01:59:12 AM »

Never, thank goodness; its advantagous to a majority of states.

We're still a federal Republic, guys...deal.
Logged
FloridaRepublican
justrhyno
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 455
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: October 09, 2011, 07:11:44 PM »

I hope it NEVER gets abolished. I love it.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: October 10, 2011, 12:12:08 AM »

I hate this conversation. The electoral college is the least of ours worries. We have fptp, gerrymandering, and awful campaign finance laws and we choose to focus on this?
I would like to see how a system other than fptp would work with electoral college in-tact.  That would be the joke of all jokes.


Easy.  If all 50 States allocated their electoral votes proportionately, then the election would fairly often go the House to decide, which is what the Founders, who did not anticipate the rise of national political parties, thought would likely be the case in most elections after Washington.

Assuming that votes were unchanged under such a system, the most recent one to go to the House would probably be 1992. I worked out 1996 for one system of PR by State, thinking it would be the election, but I got:
Clinton   279
Dole       233
Perot       26

However since the wasted vote syndrome is negated to some extent, I think under such a system we'd see more third party voting and increased voting in highly partisan places.

Note that third parties suffer by the use of PR by state instead of nationwide.  Using the same system as I used above, but allocating all 538 EV as a single PR district, I got:

Clinton   269 (-10)
Dole       223 (-10)
Perot       46 (+20)

Which would not only have almost doubled Perot's EV count, it would have sent the election into the House.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: October 10, 2011, 05:17:22 AM »
« Edited: October 10, 2011, 05:19:08 AM by Draft Barack Obama for the GOP Nomination »

Let's be real honest people:

Do you really think this nation would be around long enough to see such reform happen?
The Electoral College would not survive if America does not.

It isn't called reform if everybody is dead Lewis.

Unless you're a Nazi Fascist.
[/Godwin]
Who said everybody would be dead? The Electoral College will be abolished when the government of Mexico annexes Aztlan outright and imposes martial law over the Outer Territories.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.049 seconds with 14 queries.