Should we reform the Electoral College?

[Free Bird]

We all know that the EC is unfair. It gives cities too much influence, particularly in places like Michigan, Illinois, and Pennsylvania. Personally, I want to see it completely overhauled. The question is how. Congressional Districts? Direct popular vote instead? What do you think?

[Mister Mets]

I'm in full support of the Popular Vote Compact. It's the easiest way to have the equivalent of a national popular vote.

I don't think a vote by congressional district works, as that encourages even more gerrymandering and naturally benefits one party (in this case it's the Republicans, as Democrats are more likely to live in areas where they're overrepresented, or in small liberal enclaves within conservative zones.)

[Free Bird]

I'm in full support of the Popular Vote Compact. It's the easiest way to have the equivalent of a national popular vote.

I don't think a vote by congressional district works, as that encourages even more gerrymandering and naturally benefits one party (in this case it's the Republicans, as Democrats are more likely to live in areas where they're overrepresented, or in small liberal enclaves within conservative zones.)

I think that's the biggest issue. Over representation. Democrats in cities have far too much power in major states just by living in tiny zones.

[Cranberry]

I'm in full support of the Popular Vote Compact. It's the easiest way to have the equivalent of a national popular vote.

I don't think a vote by congressional district works, as that encourages even more gerrymandering and naturally benefits one party (in this case it's the Republicans, as Democrats are more likely to live in areas where they're overrepresented, or in small liberal enclaves within conservative zones.)

I think that's the biggest issue. Over representation. Democrats in cities have far too much power in major states just by living in tiny zones.

That's because they are more... They just have the power because they are more than the conservatives. It's the way democracy works...

[Sbane]

I'm in full support of the Popular Vote Compact. It's the easiest way to have the equivalent of a national popular vote.

I don't think a vote by congressional district works, as that encourages even more gerrymandering and naturally benefits one party (in this case it's the Republicans, as Democrats are more likely to live in areas where they're overrepresented, or in small liberal enclaves within conservative zones.)

I think that's the biggest issue. Over representation. Democrats in cities have far too much power in major states just by living in tiny zones.

Do you understand how democracy works?

[Free Bird]

I'm in full support of the Popular Vote Compact. It's the easiest way to have the equivalent of a national popular vote.

I don't think a vote by congressional district works, as that encourages even more gerrymandering and naturally benefits one party (in this case it's the Republicans, as Democrats are more likely to live in areas where they're overrepresented, or in small liberal enclaves within conservative zones.)

I think that's the biggest issue. Over representation. Democrats in cities have far too much power in major states just by living in tiny zones.

Do you understand how democracy works?

No. We live in a republic. I am personally for the congressional district method. It seems to be the best compromise. The cities will still decide the at-large votes, but the other areas won't have their voice drowned out.

[senyor_brownbear]

I'm in full support of the Popular Vote Compact. It's the easiest way to have the equivalent of a national popular vote.

I don't think a vote by congressional district works, as that encourages even more gerrymandering and naturally benefits one party (in this case it's the Republicans, as Democrats are more likely to live in areas where they're overrepresented, or in small liberal enclaves within conservative zones.)

I think that's the biggest issue. Over representation. Democrats in cities have far too much power in major states just by living in tiny zones.

Do you understand how democracy works?

No. We live in a republic. I am personally for the congressional district method. It seems to be the best compromise. The cities will still decide the at-large votes, but the other areas won't have their voice drowned out.

What happens when the Republicans increasingly become an urban party?  I don't think there's any possible way to avoid this trend.  If this country were 95% urban (and this is an inevitability for some decade into the future), what could we do to protect the rural voter block?

[Mister Mets]

I'm in full support of the Popular Vote Compact. It's the easiest way to have the equivalent of a national popular vote.

I don't think a vote by congressional district works, as that encourages even more gerrymandering and naturally benefits one party (in this case it's the Republicans, as Democrats are more likely to live in areas where they're overrepresented, or in small liberal enclaves within conservative zones.)

I think that's the biggest issue. Over representation. Democrats in cities have far too much power in major states just by living in tiny zones.

They'd have the same amount of votes no matter where they lived in the state.

The problem Democrats face with congressional representation is that urban areas are more liberal than rural and suburban areas are more conservative. It doesn't seem fair to repeat that imbalance with the presidential vote.

I like the idea of a popular electoral vote, so that the votes of people who don't live in a handful of purple states can matter, even though whoever wins the popular vote usually gets the electoral vote as well (And I'm not going to cry if someone loses the popular vote by a slim margin, but wins the electoral vote.)

[Orser67]

The EC over-represents small states like Wyoming that have three electoral votes. The EC might currently be favorable to Democrats due to the key swing states happening to be a little more Democrat-leaning than the national average, but that has nothing to do with Democrats living in cities.

I support abolishing the EC and just going with popular vote to a)avoid situations like 2000 or 1876, where the EC victor loses legitimacy in the eyes of some for not having won the popular vote (especially when lawsuits are involved), and b)make states outside the swing states actually matter in campaigns. Granted, more often than not major changes lead to some unintended consequences, so it's not a reform to be made lightly.

[Free Bird]

The EC over-represents small states like Wyoming that have three electoral votes. The EC might currently be favorable to Democrats due to the key swing states happening to be a little more Democrat-leaning than the national average, but that has nothing to do with Democrats living in cities.

I support abolishing the EC and just going with popular vote to a)avoid situations like 2000 or 1876, where the EC victor loses legitimacy in the eyes of some for not having won the popular vote (especially when lawsuits are involved), and b)make states outside the swing states actually matter in campaigns. Granted, more often than not major changes lead to some unintended consequences, so it's not a reform to be made lightly.

That's always confused me. How does it overrepresent the small states?

[bedstuy]

The EC over-represents small states like Wyoming that have three electoral votes. The EC might currently be favorable to Democrats due to the key swing states happening to be a little more Democrat-leaning than the national average, but that has nothing to do with Democrats living in cities.

I support abolishing the EC and just going with popular vote to a)avoid situations like 2000 or 1876, where the EC victor loses legitimacy in the eyes of some for not having won the popular vote (especially when lawsuits are involved), and b)make states outside the swing states actually matter in campaigns. Granted, more often than not major changes lead to some unintended consequences, so it's not a reform to be made lightly.

That's always confused me. How does it overrepresent the small states?

It's simple.  Consider the ratio between people and electoral votes.

[The Dowager Mod]

Reform? No.
Abolish, Yes.

[RTX]

What fun would election night be without all the speculation and map possibilities?

[buritobr]

For the ones who want to abolish the Electoral College, what do you prefer:
Popular vote in one round? Or two rounds?

Would you like the possibility of voting for Ralph Nader in the first round and for the Democrat in the second round?

[International Brotherhood of Bernard]

For the ones who want to abolish the Electoral College, what do you prefer:
Popular vote in one round? Or two rounds?

Would you like the possibility of voting for Ralph Nader in the first round and for the Democrat in the second round?

A two-round system would absolutely kill Democratic turnout and virtually guarantee Republican victory if no one got a majority. It's hard enough getting our voters out for one election, let alone two. I think the best solution would be what Australia uses, IRV. That way you could vote for Nader first preference then have the Dem as your second.

[ElectionsGuy]

We all know that the EC is unfair. It gives cities too much influence, particularly in places like Michigan, Illinois, and Pennsylvania. Personally, I want to see it completely overhauled. The question is how. Congressional Districts? Direct popular vote instead? What do you think?

Yep

[Hamster]

We all know that the EC is unfair. It gives cities too much influence, particularly in places like Michigan, Illinois, and Pennsylvania. Personally, I want to see it completely overhauled. The question is how. Congressional Districts? Direct popular vote instead? What do you think?

Yep

Preferably with Instant Runoff Voting.

[Mister Mets]

For the ones who want to abolish the Electoral College, what do you prefer:
Popular vote in one round? Or two rounds?

Would you like the possibility of voting for Ralph Nader in the first round and for the Democrat in the second round?

One round. Election day is complicated enough without sometimes making it happen twice in a short period of time.

I don't know if Instant Runoff Voting works. First it's tough to get parties to agree to anything that makes Independents stronger. And the electorate is unlikely to be sufficiently informed to be expected to rank numerous candidates.

[senyor_brownbear]

For the ones who want to abolish the Electoral College, what do you prefer:
Popular vote in one round? Or two rounds?

Would you like the possibility of voting for Ralph Nader in the first round and for the Democrat in the second round?

A two-round system would absolutely kill Democratic turnout and virtually guarantee Republican victory if no one got a majority. It's hard enough getting our voters out for one election, let alone two. I think the best solution would be what Australia uses, IRV. That way you could vote for Nader first preference then have the Dem as your second.

Ummm, what?  In a two-round presidential vote, it would be the first part no one cares about.

Round One: Jeb Bush. Hillary Clinton. Gary Johnson. Jill Stein.  Gee, I wonder who makes it.

[kcguy]

Ummm, what?  In a two-round presidential vote, it would be the first part no one cares about.

Round One: Jeb Bush. Hillary Clinton. Gary Johnson. Jill Stein.  Gee, I wonder who makes it.

That's what people in France thought until 2002, when the left-wing vote splintered.  Center-left candidate Lionel Jospin came in third, and voters had to choose between the center-right Jacques Chirac and the far-right Jean-Marie Le Pen.  Chirac won the second round 82-18.

[senyor_brownbear]

Ummm, what?  In a two-round presidential vote, it would be the first part no one cares about.

Round One: Jeb Bush. Hillary Clinton. Gary Johnson. Jill Stein.  Gee, I wonder who makes it.

That's what people in France thought until 2002, when the left-wing vote splintered.  Center-left candidate Lionel Jospin came in third, and voters had to choose between the center-right Jacques Chirac and the far-right Jean-Marie Le Pen.  Chirac won the second round 82-18.

In which case the ultimate outcome, Chirac's victory, was never in question?

[kcguy]

Ummm, what?  In a two-round presidential vote, it would be the first part no one cares about.

Round One: Jeb Bush. Hillary Clinton. Gary Johnson. Jill Stein.  Gee, I wonder who makes it.

That's what people in France thought until 2002, when the left-wing vote splintered.  Center-left candidate Lionel Jospin came in third, and voters had to choose between the center-right Jacques Chirac and the far-right Jean-Marie Le Pen.  Chirac won the second round 82-18.

In which case the ultimate outcome, Chirac's victory, was never in question?

After the first round, Chirac's victory was never in question.

In the first round, it's hard to tell:  Chirac 20%, Le Pen 17%, Jospin 16%, likely left-wing parties (the Workers' Struggle, the Greens, the Revolutionary Communist League, the French Communist Party, and the Radical Party of the Left) 20%, a likely right-wing party (the Hunting, Fishing, Nature, and Traditions Party) 4%, and a remaining half-dozen parties, whose names I can't quickly identify, with a total of 23%.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

In 2000, it was very controversial. When we have neither reaching the 270 needed to clinch the election or election decided by such a small margin, instead of the parties deciding election, we should of had a runoff. Only then, the elections would have been fair in 1800, 1828, 1876, 2000.

[SWE]

I'm in full support of the Popular Vote Compact. It's the easiest way to have the equivalent of a national popular vote.

I don't think a vote by congressional district works, as that encourages even more gerrymandering and naturally benefits one party (in this case it's the Republicans, as Democrats are more likely to live in areas where they're overrepresented, or in small liberal enclaves within conservative zones.)

I think that's the biggest issue. Over representation. Democrats in cities have far too much power in major states just by living in tiny zones.

Do you understand how democracy works?

No. We live in a republic. I am personally for the congressional district method. It seems to be the best compromise. The cities will still decide the at-large votes, but the other areas won't have their voice drowned out.

A republic is a form of democracy. Saying the U.S. is a republic, not a democracy is like saying a mouse is a rodent, not a mammal

[SWE]

Hilarious how the GOP now wants to reform the electoral college.  Last time I checked Gore won the popular vote

Last I checked it's 2014, not 2000, and the Democrats have a huge advantage with the current EC map