Electoral College or Popular Vote?

[Speaker Superique]

Why do americans prefer the electoral college?

I live in Brazil and, with all do respect, the popular vote it is more fair and democratic.

[Vasall des Midas]

It would require an end to the bizarre hodgepodge of state regulations about ballot access, vote counting, etc - one of the few remaining provinces of meaningful state legislation.

[Speaker Superique]

It would require an end to the bizarre hodgepodge of state regulations about ballot access, vote counting, etc - one of the few remaining provinces of meaningful state legislation.

Bizarre Regulations. So I think do you agree with the Popular Vote ideia...

[Vasall des Midas]

Well, for one I'm not an American, and for another if asked my honest-to-God most personal opinion, I wouldn't agree that any position as powerful as the current American presidency ought to exist, and that direct popular vote would be an improvement on the situation but not a great one.

But Americans do tend to answer your question with stuff like "imagine the chaos and controversies of a nationwide recount" which, really, presupposes that rules remain odd and at variance even under direct popular vote - most don't tend to imagine that that might be changed. As it would need to be. So it's sort of a major psychological barrier.

And the other one's of course that the US Constitution is just so ridiculously hard to amend and the issue just doesn't seem worth fighting such an epic battle over to most people.

[Rockefeller]

The United States government is based off of the concept of federalism--that is a sharing of powers between the national and more local forms of government.

The Electoral College is the only effective "check" that the states maintain on the federal executive branch.

[Speaker Superique]

The United States government is based off of the concept of federalism--that is a sharing of powers between the national and more local forms of government.

The Electoral College is the only effective "check" that the states maintain on the federal executive branch.

I know that but, usually, when a candidate win in the Popular Vote, he wins in the majority of states, or at least in a reasonable amount of states.

[ShadowOfTheWave]

Popular vote rule is unfair to states like Vermont, who will then have virtually no say in the election, leaving places like Texas & California to decide for everyone else.

[Speaker Superique]

Popular vote rule is unfair to states like Vermont, who will then have virtually no say in the election, leaving places like Texas & California to decide for everyone else.

That is not true. Think like this, if you are a Democrat on Texas, your vote will not make difference because Texas is a Red State, the same thing applies for a Republican on California. And the same thing applies for all the third-party voters in every state.

Instead of thinking about the state as an individual, you should think the state just like the place were people are voting. National Elections are about giving people the power to choose a National Leader, so the state where you live shouldn't really matter at all.

The presidential candidate would have to find support everywhere he could, on the Red States, on the Blue States and on the Swing States. Every voter would matter for the presidential candidate.

With the Popular Vote, every vote counts.

Mc Cain won only 32,15% of the EVs but he won 45.7% of PVs, do you really think that this is a fairer system?

As Americans give so much value to the state level bureaucracy, I have another idea: just allocate the electors of each state proportionally.  It will be PV with a EV face.

[Speaker Superique]

But Americans do tend to answer your question with stuff like "imagine the chaos and controversies of a nationwide recount" which, really, presupposes that rules remain odd and at variance even under direct popular vote - most don't tend to imagine that that might be changed. As it would need to be. So it's sort of a major psychological barrier.
.

I see what you mean and it will be very difficult to change that philosophy. At least , in the end,  it will be very positive for the American people

Brazil hosts elections every 2 years and it uses a electronic ballot that is organized by an Independent Committee with some help of the Federal Government. We are a big country, we are poorer than the USA and we are counting and recounting our votes perfectly.

[Vasall des Midas]

The United States government is based off of the concept of federalism--that is a sharing of powers between the national and more local forms of government.

Is it? Historically and to an extent rhetorically, the US is indeed based on a concept of Federalism, but in practice it only has a sharing of powers between the national and more local forms of government, much like virtually every other major country in the world (the UK being the most important excemption, though a but partial one since Devolution). It's not the same thing at all really.

[greenforest32]

The United States government is based off of the concept of federalism--that is a sharing of powers between the national and more local forms of government.

The Electoral College is the only effective "check" that the states maintain on the federal executive branch.

All this talk of the Electoral College being a check for the states against the federal government really doesn't make sense to me. A check on what? Ensuring that the President must win a majority of the states in order to win the Presidency? What purpose would that serve? That doesn't even exist currently as the electoral vote is based on population (every state gets 2 EC votes for their 2 senators + 1 for each of their house seats (which of course are allocated based on population) and DC gets 3).

Should we give every state one electoral vote and have them award it via winner-take all plurality elections? Wouldn't that be fair to the states? Oh wait, that wouldn't be fair to the people. Nobody cares about giving the states this kind of disproportionate influence in the Presidential election. They already have the senate where they get two senators per state regardless of their population.

A national popular vote is much more fair to the people. The only reason Ohio and Florida get so much attention over other states in the election is because of the Electoral College. EC votes are awarded via winner-take-all so candidates campaign heavily in close states in hopes of getting their EC votes and awarding EC votes by gerrymandered congressional districts is bad as well. Proportional allocation of the EC votes (60% of the state vote = 60% of its EV votes) is better than by congressional district but even that has problems from the aforementioned 2 EC votes to every state regardless of their population.

The Electoral College is an archaic relic that serves no purpose today other than to undermine having the winner of the popular vote be the winner of the election. It should be abolished.

[Hatman]

If EVs were divided proportionally, this is what the results would've been for 2008:

   O   M   N
AL   4   5
AK   1   2
AZ   5   5
AR   2   4
CA   34   20   1
CO   5   4
CT   4   3
DE   2   1
DC   3
FL   14   13   
GA   7   8
HI   3   1
ID   1   3
IL   13   8
IN   6   5
IA   4   3
KS   3   3
KY   3   5
LA   4   5
ME   2   2
MD   6   4
MA   8   4
MI   10   7
MN   6   4
MS   3   3
MO   5   6
MT   1   2
NE   2   3
NV   3   2
NH   2   2
NJ   9   6
NM   3   2
NY   20   11
NC   8   7
ND   1   2
OH   10   10
OK   2   5
OR   4   3
PA   12   9
RI   3   1
SC   4   4
SD   1   2
TN   5   6
TX   15   19
UT   2   3
VT   2   1
VA   7   6
WA   6   5
WV   2   3
WI   6   4
WY   1   2
   289   248   1
   53.7   46.1   0.2

[Speaker Superique]

If EVs were divided proportionally, this is what the results would've been for 2008:

   O   M   N
   289   248   1
   53.7   46.1   0.2

Thank you for your contribution!

[Mr. Morden]

In a close election, allocating the EVs proportionally by vote within each state actually tends to tilt things slightly towards the Republicans (relative to their showing in the popular vote), since they tend to do a bit better in smaller states, which have a bigger proportional bonus in the EC with the +2 EVs for senators.

For example, I think if you allocated the 2000 EVs by popular vote in each state, then Bush wins the electoral college more decisively (without the need for a recount), despite losing the popular vote nationwide.

[emailking]

With the Popular Vote, every vote counts.

Every vote counts as it is. They just count a different way than they would in a popular vote.

[crypto-fascist superhero]

With the Popular Vote, every vote counts.

No, actually, every vote would have no statistical chance of counting whatsoever (even more so than this is already the case).

[Speaker Superique]

With the Popular Vote, every vote counts.

Every vote counts as it is. They just count a different way than they would in a popular vote.

So it's not counting...

Imagine this situation

"Hi! I'm Robert, I live in Houston, Texas, and I'm voting for Obama! I like the electoral college because my vote counts!"

"Wait! Haven't you noticed that you are voting for Republicans every presidential year? If you really want to vote and make difference, you should vote on Ohio or Florida, and your vote may not even count."

"But that is not fair, I want to vote for Obama!"

"I know Robert, I know... But this is the Electoral Collegge, this is reality. If Gore accpeted it, you must accept!"

LOL

[Mr. Morden]

I think the debate is breaking down over the semantics of what it means for a vote to count.  The way that I would put it is that under the EC, the votes of both Democratic and Republican voters in Texas do in fact count, in that they determine how the electoral votes of Texas go.  However, these voters lack "electoral leverage", which means that their votes are determining an event for which we're already ~95% sure of the outcome, since we're pretty sure that the Republican candidate is going to win Texas.

Interestingly, electoral leverage is based entirely on our ignorance of how the vote is going to turn out.  The states where we pretty much know who's going to win lack leverage, and the candidates ignore them, whereas the states where we're ignorant of who's going to win beforehand are the states that the candidates care about.

One could imagine a thought experiment in which the electoral college is left intact, but the state boundaries are all redrawn at random, all records of past voting records by precinct are destroyed, and statewide polling is banned.  The candidates would be forced to campaign nationwide, and the campaign would play out as if it was determined by the popular vote, because no one would know which voters were living in states that would end up being competitive and which were living in states where it would be a landslide.  The ignorance of whose votes "mattered" in such a system would make it "more democratic".

[Hatman]

In a close election, allocating the EVs proportionally by vote within each state actually tends to tilt things slightly towards the Republicans (relative to their showing in the popular vote), since they tend to do a bit better in smaller states, which have a bigger proportional bonus in the EC with the +2 EVs for senators.

For example, I think if you allocated the 2000 EVs by popular vote in each state, then Bush wins the electoral college more decisively (without the need for a recount), despite losing the popular vote nationwide.

Wrong. While you're right Bush would get more EVs, he only gets a plurality. By one. And it's thrown to the House:
   G   B   N
AL   4   5
AK   1   2
AZ   4   4
AR   3   3
CA   29   23   2   
CO   3   4   1
CT   5   3
DE   2   1
DC   3
FL   12   12   1   
GA   6   7
HI   2   2
ID   1   3
IL   12   9    1
IN   5   7
IA   4   3
KS   2   4
KY   3   5
LA   4   5
ME   2   2
MD   6   4
MA   7   4   1
MI   9   8   1
MN   5   5
MS   3   4
MO   5   6
MT   1   2
NE   2   3
NV   2   2
NH   2   2
NJ   8   6   1
NM   3   2
NY   20   12   1
NC   6   8
ND   1   2
OH   10   10   1
OK   3   5
OR   3   3   1
PA   12   11
RI   3   1
SC   3   5
SD   1   2
TN   5   6
TX   12   19   1
UT   1   4
VT   2   1
VA   6   7
WA   6   5
WV   2   3
WI   5   5   1
WY   1   2
   262   263   13
   48.7   48.9   2.4

[Mr. Morden]

In a close election, allocating the EVs proportionally by vote within each state actually tends to tilt things slightly towards the Republicans (relative to their showing in the popular vote), since they tend to do a bit better in smaller states, which have a bigger proportional bonus in the EC with the +2 EVs for senators.

For example, I think if you allocated the 2000 EVs by popular vote in each state, then Bush wins the electoral college more decisively (without the need for a recount), despite losing the popular vote nationwide.

Wrong. While you're right Bush would get more EVs, he only gets a plurality. By one. And it's thrown to the House:

Ah, you're right on that.  Sorry, I was getting it mixed up with the scenario where the EVs are allocated by CD.  In that case, I think Bush wins.

[True Federalist]

When the Constitution was adopted, the standards of who could vote varied widely among the 13 states, even without considering the impact of slavery. Indeed, some states had different requirements to be a voter for different parts of their local government, which is why the Constitution specifies that the electors for the House (and later the Senate as well) are to have the same qualifications as "the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures".

The differences in who qualifies to be a voter are far narrower than they were, but unless eliminated, some form of electoral college seems advisable.  The main tweak I'd make is to delink the size of the college from the size of the Congress.  1 elector per 50,000 with the incorporated territories getting to vote if they can meet that minimum as well seems like a good figure.  That would range from California with 677 electors down to the Virgin Islands with 2.  (American Samoa and the Northern Marianas are not incorporated territories, so with the lack of birthright citizenship, I doubt either has 50K US citizens as they barely have 50K people.)

Requiring proportional election and/or election by district wouldn't be a problem for me.  (For example, California could elect 12 Electors from each CD plus another 41 Statewide.)

Such a system preserves the benefits of the electoral college in balancing out the disparities in voter eligibility and making any needed recounts be over a smaller number of ballots while being less distorted by differences in persons per Elector.

[Vasall des Midas]

I think the debate is breaking down over the semantics of what it means for a vote to count.

It is a fairly meaningless term. If you define it as "make an actual difference", obviously in a single-position election a vote does so only if the election is decided by a single vote, but in that case every vote for that candidate did (or, under the EC, if one state's election is decided by a single vote and that state happened to be decisive as well; and even then it's only the votes from that state that did.)

[Speaker Superique]

I think the debate is breaking down over the semantics of what it means for a vote to count.

It is a fairly meaningless term. If you define it as "make an actual difference", obviously in a single-position election a vote does so only if the election is decided by a single vote, but in that case every vote for that candidate did (or, under the EC, if one state's election is decided by a single vote and that state happened to be decisive as well; and even then it's only the votes from that state that did.)

I think all of you misunderstood what I was trying to say. When I said that with PV every vote counts, I meant that your vote will not be filtered by a statewide poll, your vote will count nationally and that is much more fair!

I don't think that getting less vote than your rival could make you president. The Electoral Collegge is old and it was based in a system which is less democratic than the system we have today.


Senators were elected indirectly and they could vote on any Candidate they wanted...

[Speaker Superique]

In a close election, allocating the EVs proportionally by vote within each state actually tends to tilt things slightly towards the Republicans (relative to their showing in the popular vote), since they tend to do a bit better in smaller states, which have a bigger proportional bonus in the EC with the +2 EVs for senators.

For example, I think if you allocated the 2000 EVs by popular vote in each state, then Bush wins the electoral college more decisively (without the need for a recount), despite losing the popular vote nationwide.

Wrong. While you're right Bush would get more EVs, he only gets a plurality. By one. And it's thrown to the House:
   G   B   N
AL   4   5
AK   1   2
AZ   4   4
AR   3   3
CA   29   23   2   
CO   3   4   1
CT   5   3
DE   2   1
DC   3
FL   12   12   1   
GA   6   7
HI   2   2
ID   1   3
IL   12   9    1
IN   5   7
IA   4   3
KS   2   4
KY   3   5
LA   4   5
ME   2   2
MD   6   4
MA   7   4   1
MI   9   8   1
MN   5   5
MS   3   4
MO   5   6
MT   1   2
NE   2   3
NV   2   2
NH   2   2
NJ   8   6   1
NM   3   2
NY   20   12   1
NC   6   8
ND   1   2
OH   10   10   1
OK   3   5
OR   3   3   1
PA   12   11
RI   3   1
SC   3   5
SD   1   2
TN   5   6
TX   12   19   1
UT   1   4
VT   2   1
VA   6   7
WA   6   5
WV   2   3
WI   5   5   1
WY   1   2
   262   263   13
   48.7   48.9   2.4

Gore would loose anyway Imagine the congress appointing Bush, that would be so unfair! And the Republicans would be crashed in the next mid-term election

[emailking]

I think all of you misunderstood what I was trying to say. When I said that with PV every vote counts, I meant that your vote will not be filtered by a statewide poll, your vote will count nationally and that is much more fair!

Well that confuses me even more. Consider this scenario:

a. The electoral college is decided by the votes of one state.
b. That state (after all recounting was done) was decided by one popular vote
c. You personally cast your vote for the winning candidate

Then by your specification, your vote doesn't count because it was filtered by a statewide poll. But that seems to fly in the face of common sense for what it means for your vote to count. Because if you personally hadn't voted the way you did, the outcome would have been different.

I think what you're really trying to say is that under the electoral college, a lot of votes get 'wasted.' But the same is true for a popular vote. Unless the election is decided by exactly one vote, then there are wasted votes. It's just a different way of wasting them.

Which way of wasting them is "fairer" is a different matter.

The electoral leverage issue is interesting, but it's largely an issue of what the candidates do before the election, rather than the meaning of the votes that are cast. I would agree though that the "counting" issue is semantic.