Should we reform the Electoral College?

[Mister Mets]

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

The regions that have agreed to the National Popular Vote Compact tend to be liberal. It passed in DC and nine Safe-D states. It's also waiting for executive approval in New York.

Its best showing in any conservative state is Oklahoma, where it passed the upper house.

[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

The regions that have agreed to the National Popular Vote Compact tend to be liberal. It passed in DC and nine Safe-D states. It's also waiting for executive approval in New York.

Its best showing in any conservative state is Oklahoma, where it passed the upper house.

It is kind of ironic that the compact is doing best in liberal state, seeing as how Democrats, at least right now, benefit much more from keeping the EC

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Getting rid of the EC would be unfair to states like Wyoming & Vermont.

[senyor_brownbear]

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

The regions that have agreed to the National Popular Vote Compact tend to be liberal. It passed in DC and nine Safe-D states. It's also waiting for executive approval in New York.

Its best showing in any conservative state is Oklahoma, where it passed the upper house.

It is kind of ironic that the compact is doing best in liberal state, seeing as how Democrats, at least right now, benefit much more from keeping the EC

Just because the Democrats are advantaged in electoral college elections does not mean they wouldn't be even more advantaged in popular vote elections.  I think popular votes would give more power to cities and liberals.

[Mordecai]

Getting rid of the EC would be unfair to states like Wyoming & Vermont.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k&feature=youtu.be&t=1m49s

[SWE]

Getting rid of the EC would be unfair to states like Wyoming & Vermont.

So unless the small states are at an unfair advantage it's unfair to them?

[Mister Mets]

Getting rid of the EC would be unfair to states like Wyoming & Vermont.

Not really.

There is the argument that citizens in the small states have an unfair advantage at the moment, since they'll have a bigger effect on the electoral outcome than the typical voter.

Although I'd counter that with the current system deprives them of a meaningful effect on the outcome.

There are 12 states with 3-4 electoral votes, in addition to DC. Only one, New Hampshire, has a shot at making a difference in the current political environment.

In the rest, an individual vote doesn't matter because it's a safe bet one party will win in a landslide. The Democrats will win the electoral votes of Hawaii, Vermont, Delaware, Rhode Island, Maine and Washington DC. Republicans will win the electoral vote totals of Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska and Wyoming.

Repealing the electoral college allows the citizens to be part of a process where the outcome isn't known.

[Joe Republic]

Getting rid of the EC would be unfair to states like Wyoming & Vermont.

It wouldn't make any difference.  Presidential candidates already ignore both of those states now, and would continue to do so without the EC.

[Mister Mets]

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

The regions that have agreed to the National Popular Vote Compact tend to be liberal. It passed in DC and nine Safe-D states. It's also waiting for executive approval in New York.

Its best showing in any conservative state is Oklahoma, where it passed the upper house.

It is kind of ironic that the compact is doing best in liberal state, seeing as how Democrats, at least right now, benefit much more from keeping the EC

Republicans are more likely to support the federalist arguments for preserving the electoral college, so that could encourage them to go against their interests. A national vote may also require uniform voting standards, which they might not be comfortable with.

Although there's also the presumption that the outcome won't be different with or without the electoral college (which is usually true.)

There may also be a greater comfort in a familiar strategy over a suddenly nationalized campaign.

[Antonio the Sixth]

We all know that the EC is unfair

Yes...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...no. That post started out well but apparently you're a hopeless moron.

[Franzl]

I swear...the "republic, not a democracy" idiocy will drive me insane one day.

[SteveRogers]

Getting rid of the EC would be unfair to states like Wyoming & Vermont.

Because those states have so much influence on presidential elections right now?

As originally envisioned, the electoral college benefited small states by giving them disproportionate representation. That pretty much went out the window when every state switched over to a popular vote while maintaining winner-takes-all apportionment.

[Mordecai]

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.

It's the worst possible compromise, even worse than the current system.

I swear...the "republic, not a democracy" idiocy will drive me insane one day.

Yeah I've seen Ron Paul libertarians make that argument and then in the same breath complain about the GOP keeping Ron Paul down.

[Adam Griffin]

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

NY just became state #10 to pass it.

Enacted into Law (165 EVs)
Passed by Both Houses (9 EVs)
Passed by One House (76 EVs)

[Unimog]

Why not keep the EC, but allocating the votes with the popular vote in the states?

Examples: Wyoming  GOP 64%; DEM 32% --> GOP 2 EV; DEM 1 EV

Might even make third party votes more interresting.

[Matty]

Big cities should be treated as "city-states" during presidential elections. This would make things fair for non-city folk in states like California and Pennsylvania, where rural people have no say.

[Skill and Chance]

Big cities should be treated as "city-states" during presidential elections. This would make things fair for non-city folk in states like California and Pennsylvania, where rural people have no say.

Or just keep the EC but use proportionality to the statewide vote as the previous poster mentioned.  Then conservatives in CA and liberals in TX have a voice, directly proportional to their numbers.  To make it truly fair though, you would need to leave open the possibility of the 2 "Senator" EVs splitting 1-1 and that might raise a Baker v. Carr challenge.  Also, libertarians/greens would regularly snag an EV from CA and possibly from TX/FL/NY.

[Skill and Chance]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When this happens, rural voters could protect themselves by forming a rural-issues 3rd party with the goal of denying either party a majority in congress.  This could work particularly well in the senate because a rural 3rd party could take outright control of 5-10 small states if it is sufficiently well-organized.  It would probably be in the rural party's best interest not to run presidential candidates and instead have the 2 major parties compete for their endorsement.  We are already seeing hints of this with the Tea Party in today's 80/20 urban world. 

[stevekamp]

The only "EC reform" I favor is either a one-election National popular Vote, or a one-election-with-IRV National Popular Vote.

The other "reforms" are simply attempts by Reeps to double the value of their votes and de-value Democratic votes.  The cry "cities have too much influence" and "rural voters have no say" make by LOL at the Conservative Entitlement Complex

[Free Bird]

Big cities should be treated as "city-states" during presidential elections. This would make things fair for non-city folk in states like California and Pennsylvania, where rural people have no say.

As in give all big cities their own EV's? What would constitute which cities get them?

[Mister Mets]

Big cities should be treated as "city-states" during presidential elections. This would make things fair for non-city folk in states like California and Pennsylvania, where rural people have no say.

There's an argument for giving cities with a big enough population (let's say one in excess of the least populated state) more representation, including Senators. That would also include some electoral college benefits.

Though it would probably end up favoring Democrats.

Why not keep the EC, but allocating the votes with the popular vote in the states?

Examples: Wyoming  GOP 64%; DEM 32% --> GOP 2 EV; DEM 1 EV

Might even make third party votes more interresting.

That could make it tougher to find out who won the presidential election, and by how much.

Right now, it's enough to know that a state was won. But now we'd have to wait for the full results to determine how many EVs a candidate won.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Hopefully, in the future we will have a direct election, perhaps in 2020. But, Dems have seem to have a lock no matter what system of voting behavior we use, or do rather well.

[Skill and Chance]

Big cities should be treated as "city-states" during presidential elections. This would make things fair for non-city folk in states like California and Pennsylvania, where rural people have no say.

There's an argument for giving cities with a big enough population (let's say one in excess of the least populated state) more representation, including Senators. That would also include some electoral college benefits.

Though it would probably end up favoring Democrats.

This is actually one of the most reasonable reforms to 1. protect rural interests in presidential elections and 2. protect urban interests in the senate.  It would actually hurt Democrats in the electoral college most likely, but it might make the senate of all things very hard for R's to win.  There are currently 30 cities (excluding DC) with a larger population than Wyoming, the smallest of which being Las Vegas.  If we made each of them new states, 26 of them would reflexively vote Democratic for everything, the only exceptions being Oklahoma City, Jacksonville, and possibly Fort Worth and Houston.

In the electoral college, this probably helps Republicans.  For example, after removing LA, San Diego, San Francisco and San Jose, the remainder of CA would still contain about 30 million people and most of the EVs.  It might be a swing state.  The remainder of IL, PA, WA, OR, MI and OH would clearly flip to R's.  However, the cities now having senator EVs of their own would offset this somewhat.

If we added these 30 new states, that would give 52 new Democratic senators, 4 new Republican senators (OKC and Jacksonville) and let's say a 1-1 split in Ft. Worth and Houston which might be generous to R's.  Now, Republicans would pick up about 15 new senate seats in existing states once the cities were removed, but that would still be a Senate in the neighborhood of a 95D/65R...

[Mister Mets]

Big cities should be treated as "city-states" during presidential elections. This would make things fair for non-city folk in states like California and Pennsylvania, where rural people have no say.

There's an argument for giving cities with a big enough population (let's say one in excess of the least populated state) more representation, including Senators. That would also include some electoral college benefits.

Though it would probably end up favoring Democrats.

This is actually one of the most reasonable reforms to 1. protect rural interests in presidential elections and 2. protect urban interests in the senate.  It would actually hurt Democrats in the electoral college most likely, but it might make the senate of all things very hard for R's to win.  There are currently 30 cities (excluding DC) with a larger population than Wyoming, the smallest of which being Las Vegas.  If we made each of them new states, 26 of them would reflexively vote Democratic for everything, the only exceptions being Oklahoma City, Jacksonville, and possibly Fort Worth and Houston.

In the electoral college, this probably helps Republicans.  For example, after removing LA, San Diego, San Francisco and San Jose, the remainder of CA would still contain about 30 million people and most of the EVs.  It might be a swing state.  The remainder of IL, PA, WA, OR, MI and OH would clearly flip to R's.  However, the cities now having senator EVs of their own would offset this somewhat.

If we added these 30 new states, that would give 52 new Democratic senators, 4 new Republican senators (OKC and Jacksonville) and let's say a 1-1 split in Ft. Worth and Houston which might be generous to R's.  Now, Republicans would pick up about 15 new senate seats in existing states once the cities were removed, but that would still be a Senate in the neighborhood of a 95D/65R...

I'm kinda proud of the idea even if it's not going to happen. The current Senate system screws over urban populations, as well as groups that disproportionately live in Urban areas.

But you noted the obvious harm to Republicans. There are also would be a point where the Senate gets too big. And cities would have massive incentives to grow populations , at least pn paper, enough to qualify for representation (although there is a fairly major cutoff from Vegas to Albuquerque.) Minneapolis and St Paul would have an argument for a representative for the Twin Cities.

There are ways to avoid some of the problems, including limiting Senate representation to the an arbitrary number of popular cities (IE- ten most populous cities, or nine most populous cities plus DC.)

There might be a few more new swing states than you suggest. Indianapolis and San Diego have Republican mayors, although that's pretty much it. Though Arizona without Phoenix, and Pennsylvania without Philadelphia would be different electorates.

[Skill and Chance]

Big cities should be treated as "city-states" during presidential elections. This would make things fair for non-city folk in states like California and Pennsylvania, where rural people have no say.

There's an argument for giving cities with a big enough population (let's say one in excess of the least populated state) more representation, including Senators. That would also include some electoral college benefits.

Though it would probably end up favoring Democrats.

This is actually one of the most reasonable reforms to 1. protect rural interests in presidential elections and 2. protect urban interests in the senate.  It would actually hurt Democrats in the electoral college most likely, but it might make the senate of all things very hard for R's to win.  There are currently 30 cities (excluding DC) with a larger population than Wyoming, the smallest of which being Las Vegas.  If we made each of them new states, 26 of them would reflexively vote Democratic for everything, the only exceptions being Oklahoma City, Jacksonville, and possibly Fort Worth and Houston.

In the electoral college, this probably helps Republicans.  For example, after removing LA, San Diego, San Francisco and San Jose, the remainder of CA would still contain about 30 million people and most of the EVs.  It might be a swing state.  The remainder of IL, PA, WA, OR, MI and OH would clearly flip to R's.  However, the cities now having senator EVs of their own would offset this somewhat.

If we added these 30 new states, that would give 52 new Democratic senators, 4 new Republican senators (OKC and Jacksonville) and let's say a 1-1 split in Ft. Worth and Houston which might be generous to R's.  Now, Republicans would pick up about 15 new senate seats in existing states once the cities were removed, but that would still be a Senate in the neighborhood of a 95D/65R...

I'm kinda proud of the idea even if it's not going to happen. The current Senate system screws over urban populations, as well as groups that disproportionately live in Urban areas.

But you noted the obvious harm to Republicans. There are also would be a point where the Senate gets too big. And cities would have massive incentives to grow populations , at least pn paper, enough to qualify for representation (although there is a fairly major cutoff from Vegas to Albuquerque.) Minneapolis and St Paul would have an argument for a representative for the Twin Cities.

There are ways to avoid some of the problems, including limiting Senate representation to the an arbitrary number of popular cities (IE- ten most populous cities, or nine most populous cities plus DC.)

There might be a few more new swing states than you suggest. Indianapolis and San Diego have Republican mayors, although that's pretty much it. Though Arizona without Phoenix, and Pennsylvania without Philadelphia would be different electorates.

I would think mayoral elections would be comparable to gubernatorial elections or even less partisan polarized than that.  Think of Bloomberg being reelected in 80% Obama NYC.  Republicans currently have no senators in 60%+ Obama states and Democrats have 2 in 60%+ Romney states due to very special circumstances.  There are a couple cities Democrats couldn't always count on to win, but the only safe Republican city on the list is OKC.

This is how the rough EV allocation for the cities would look:

NYC: 14
L.A.: 7
Chicago: 6
Houston: 5
Philadelphia: 4
Phoenix: 4
San Antonio: 4
San Diego: 4
Dallas: 4
San Jose and all smaller cities: 3

The following current states would flip from D to R immediately and the remainder of CA/NY would be competitive while the remainder of FL moves a bit toward Democrats:

Houston, San Diego and Ft. Worth would be competitive (10 EV).  It would now take 300 of 598 EV to win.  NYC, LA, Chicago, Philly, Phoenix, San Antonio, Dallas and the other 18 would be very Democratic (54+14+7+6+20 = +101 EV).  Republicans gain +6 EV from OKC and Jacksonville.  Then we have the existing states: 18 EV in PA + 17 EV in OH + 16 EV in IL + 11 EV in WA+ 8 EV in CO + 6 EV in OR+ 5 EV in NV = 80 EV.  So it's D+101 vs. R+87.  The remainder of FL would have 28 EV and it's probably brought right in line with the national PV by removing light red Jacksonville.  So which party benefits presidentially comes down to whether the remaining 46 EV in CA can truly swing R...