The irony of Democrats and the electoral college

[twenty42]

Does anybody else find it ironic that the electoral college, this horribly antiquated, archaic, and undemocratic institution that Democrats now want to abolish, is the very same institution in which Democrats put all their faith to win the last presidential election? For example...

Any tightening in national polls was disregarded and laughed at, because it was the ELECTORAL COLLEGE that elects the president in the end.

Sure, Trump could gaining in the national polls...but how was he going to crack the "blue wall" in the end?

Any Trump optimism would be disregarded as rainbow-seeking, and promptly brought down with "OK, but what is Trump's realistic path to 270 in the end?"

Basically, it was not the national polls or the popularity ratings of the candidates that made Democrats so confident in a Hillary victory. It was the electoral college that was going to put her over the top in the end.

But now?

The electoral college betrayed her and the national popular vote actually sided with her. So, in the blink of an eye, the electoral vote becomes meaningless and the popular vote is actually what matters.

Funny how things turn out in the end.

[NHI]

It's hilarious.

[elcorazon]

I never believed in a blue wall. I never believed in the electoral college. I still strongly believe that while there are many arguments in favor of the electoral college, they all boil down to "some votes are more equal than others". I just can't ultimately agree that that is an appropriate way to handle a democracy. We have other bodies where other areas and entities get "bonus" representation for whatever reason and while I may not love the way the Senate works or even the House, when the whole country votes on one person, the winner should be the one who gets the most votes. That's how other countries do it and as I said any argument made against it really boils down to giving some people's vote more sway than others, which is ultimately, undemocratic.

[elcorazon]

and another thing: until 2000 it had been over a century since the popular/electoral vote winners were not one and the same. Most people before 2000 didn't even understand that there was an electoral college. Those who did believe in the Blue Wall were operating on the facts as they are, there IS an electoral college and that's how the President is chosen.

Those of us who oppose the Electoral College are certainly impacted by how the result occurred this year, however, most are not suggesting that we abolish it post facto. Some may be seeking to work to find ways to change the result, within the electoral college (faithless electors are part of the game, you know) and recounts and the like are also part of the current system. None of that means that in the end changing the system so that NEXT TIME, the winner will be the one with the most votes isn't a good idea.

[Devout Centrist]

You need to change your definition of irony.

The 2000 election was ironic because many Conservatives thought that Al Gore would lose the PV but win the electoral college and become President. The exact opposite happened and suddenly the tables were turned.

[Sorenroy]

Personally I have always been against the Electoral College. The "blue friewal"  was always just an additional hurdle for Trump to jump. I don't think that people like myself were supporting the Electoral College because it was the only thing that could save Hillary, I think we were just ignoring it because we didn't think it would turn out with a PV/EV split. Even after the 2012 election, I had an issue with the fact that Obama received a far greater percentage of support in the Electoral College then he did in the popular vote. Especially if you feel that smaller third parties should have a voice in our democracy, then even if the PV and EV align, you still are excluding every single minor parties choice.

Just like with the primaries, people tend to be reactive rather then proactive about this sort of stuff. I might be willing to talk to my peers about why the Electoral College is bad before the Electoral College upsets the election results, but I'm not going to go out and protest it unless something has actually occurred.

[twenty42]

You need to change your definition of irony.

The 2000 election was ironic because many Conservatives thought that Al Gore would lose the PV but win the electoral college and become President. The exact opposite happened and suddenly the tables were turned.

The ironic part of the 2016 election is that the Clinton campaign's confidence was rooted in the electoral college (the "blue wall," the "272 friewal," etc.) and she ended up losing the EC and winning the popular vote.

[Sorenroy]

and another thing: until 2000 it had been over a century since the popular/electoral vote winners were not one and the same. Most people before 2000 didn't even understand that there was an electoral college. Those who did believe in the Blue Wall were operating on the facts as they are, there IS an electoral college and that's how the President is chosen.

 That's an excellent point. You have to operate in the reality in which you live, even if you disagree with it.

[twenty42]

and another thing: until 2000 it had been over a century since the popular/electoral vote winners were not one and the same. Most people before 2000 didn't even understand that there was an electoral college. Those who did believe in the Blue Wall were operating on the facts as they are, there IS an electoral college and that's how the President is chosen.

 That's an excellent point. You have to operate in the reality in which you live, even if you disagree with it.

It is a good point and I agree, but it begs the question--what was the last election before 2000 in which the electoral college played a significant role? The last close election before 2000 was 1976, and even that was somewhat fools gold given the tightening that took place in the last week.

All five elections thereafter until 2000 were comfortable victories, with four being landslides. The president was elected the exact same way in those elections as in 2000 and 2016, but the electoral college was a far more trivial and esoteric matter when candidates were winning by double digits in the PV and ~400 electoral votes at the same time. People discovered the electoral college in 2000 because it finally played a significant role in the outcome of the election, but that doesn't mean it didn't always exist and wasn't always the way we elected presidents.

[jaichind]

I think the EC is meant to prevent a radical regionalist candidate from winning a large supermajority of votes in one reason and winning the presidency.  If there are going to be winning regionalists candidates they they must at least win over a psudo-majority of states.

[Crumpets]

Meh, if there had been a push to abolish the electoral college at any point before election day, I would have supported it just as much then as I do now. I was confident Clinton would win the EC and I was just as confident she'd win the PV. Turns out, I was only right on one, but it wouldn't have changed my belief that the electoral college is 18th century feudalist whack.

[NHI]

The above says it all. #SoreLosers

[Mr. Reactionary]

This is pretty funny. I'm also enjoying the Democrats flip flop on accepting the election results, claiming voter fraud does not exist, saying the process was rigged, calling for secession before Trump has even taken office, embracing obstructionism against the party controlling 2 or more levels of lawmaking, and making bold claims that the main goal must be making X a 1 term President and that we should be hopeful that President X fails. As someone who started following politics closely around 2008 I'm definitely getting some cynical enjoyment out of both parties swaping positions and talking points while hardly anyone notices. In a lot of ways its funnier than 2013 when the Dems were hollering about regime change in a Middle East country while Pubs begged for restraint. Being a party hack for too long must get confusing.

[Beet]

As for myself, 18 months ago, when the Electoral College favored my party:

In the last two elections, an Electoral College bias in favor of the democratic candidate has developed. In 2008 Obama beat McCain by 7.26%, but it would have taken 9.5% shift nationwide towards McCain for the Republican to have won a majority of the Electoral Votes.  In 2012, Obama beat Romney by 3.86%, but it would have taken a 5.37% shift towards Romney for the Republican to win a majority of the Electoral Votes.  Thus, in the last two elections there has been about a 2% bias in the Electoral College, such that had either election been close, Obama could have won in the Electoral College but lost the popular vote by up to 2%.

The only way to eliminate a bias in the Electoral College using the popular vote as the metric of guidance would be to determine the election result by the popular vote. Hence, if Obama beats McCain by 7.26%, then it would take a 7.26% shift nationwide towards McCain for the Republican to win the election. If Obama beat Romney by 3.86%, then it would take a 3.86% shift towards Romney for the Republican to win the election.

See how simple that is? This is what Democrats have been proposing all along.

The Democrats have always supported the NPV, as evidenced by the fact that we have passed the NPVC in the states we control. We have been consistent. The president-elect has, to his credit, also been consistent in he has said both before and after the election, that he would prefer the popular vote. A rare agreement between Democrats and Trump! Bipartisanship in an age of division. The only question is, why do forum Republicans reject their president-elect's common sense?

[wolfsblood07]

Trump would have probably won the popular vote if he had spent some time and money on the west coast.   A lot of illegal votes were cast for Hillary in CA.  I'd like to keep the electoral college, but I would prefer to have state legislatures choose the electors because the average voter is a dunce.  Either that, or if we do go to national popular vote, then require 3 forms of ID plus a valid credit card to vote.

[Axel Foley]

With popular vote, do you prefer to have as winner  anyone who gets a plurality or to have a runoff between the two most voted in absence of a majority?

[Pericles]

I never believed in a blue wall. I never believed in the electoral college. I still strongly believe that while there are many arguments in favor of the electoral college, they all boil down to "some votes are more equal than others". I just can't ultimately agree that that is an appropriate way to handle a democracy. We have other bodies where other areas and entities get "bonus" representation for whatever reason and while I may not love the way the Senate works or even the House, when the whole country votes on one person, the winner should be the one who gets the most votes. That's how other countries do it and as I said any argument made against it really boils down to giving some people's vote more sway than others, which is ultimately, undemocratic.

Same.

[Bigby]

Trump would have probably won the popular vote if he had spent some time and money on the west coast.   A lot of illegal votes were cast for Hillary in CA.  I'd like to keep the electoral college, but I would prefer to have state legislatures choose the electors because the average voter is a dunce.  Either that, or if we do go to national popular vote, then require 3 forms of ID plus a valid credit card to vote.

You're definitely not a Jacksonian.

[Fuzzy Bear]

and another thing: until 2000 it had been over a century since the popular/electoral vote winners were not one and the same. Most people before 2000 didn't even understand that there was an electoral college. Those who did believe in the Blue Wall were operating on the facts as they are, there IS an electoral college and that's how the President is chosen.

 That's an excellent point. You have to operate in the reality in which you live, even if you disagree with it.

I've posted this idea before, but I think that Trump played the EC game to the extreme.  The idea that the EC and PV are more divergent now, rather than in the past, are in no small account due to the deep division in the nation and the era of instant information, where polling and demographic data are at one's fingertips to be used.

If the rules were different; if PV was how we elected a President, would Trump have won?  I think that, maybe, yes, he would have won.  I say that because if PV were the name of the game, Trump (and Hillary, for that matter) would have run substantially different campaigns.  Trump would be seen in places like upstate NY, Bakersfield California and the Central Valley of California, the Deep South, Staten Island and the Long Island suburbs, and much of New Jersey.  Of course, Hillary would be in the Black Belt counties of AL, GA, MS, and SC, New Orleans, the cities of Texas, and the like.  It would be a 50 state turnout strategy, with every state being important for the votes needed to turn out.  

Could Trump have won that game?  I think it's possible.  He won the game he was playing, and he won it quite masterfully, as it turned out.  Different rules result in a different campaign and a different final result.  I would also suggest that in a PV contest, people will be even less likely to vote for a third party candidate, as there is no longer the "I live in a non-swing state." mentality.  How many Johnson votes would have gone to Trump?  At this writing, 4,042,291 voters chose Gary Johnson.  If you rate this a 75-25 split with Republicans making up most of the Johnson vote, what would happen if PV were the decider?  Would Johnson have gotten fewer votes?  Would those votes have gone to Trump?  By what margin?  I think it's highly likely that 2 million more votes would have gone to Trump than Clinton.  So I think that if PV were the mode of choice, Trump may well have prevailed as well.

[Virginiá]

A lot of illegal votes were cast for Hillary in CA. 

Define 'a lot' & do you have proof for this?

Either that, or if we do go to national popular vote, then require 3 forms of ID plus a valid credit card to vote.

Oh, why are we not requiring 2938102931920 ids and a dozen credit cards right now? We still essentially operate on a plurality vote system, just on a state-by-state basis. What is the difference? And why would more IDs make more of a difference anyway? You really think there are armies of people going around doing in-person voter fraud? Really?

[Fuzzy Bear]

A lot of illegal votes were cast for Hillary in CA. 

Define 'a lot' & do you have proof for this?

Either that, or if we do go to national popular vote, then require 3 forms of ID plus a valid credit card to vote.

Oh, why are we not requiring 2938102931920 ids and a dozen credit cards right now? We still essentially operate on a plurality vote system, just on a state-by-state basis. What is the difference? And why would more IDs make more of a difference anyway? You really think there are armies of people going around doing in-person voter fraud? Really?

Corrupt politicians would have no scruples enrolling non-citizens to vote if they could get away with it.  The role of the immigration issue would give many non-citizens motive to play along if this could be pulled off.  That wouldn't be the whole of it, but it would be a source of illegal votes that could be delivered for one party or another.

Of course, the GOP is no stranger to voter fraud, and stuffing ballot boxes can occur in ways that have nothing to do with fake ID, dead people voting, etc.

[JohnCA246]

Trump may have won the popular vote if it were an NPV. Who knows? I was against the electoral college in October and I'm against it now. I'm for whoever gets the most votes wins, period. The EC were the rules of this election, and Trump won, I don't think many people are arguing that. It is frustrating though that Dems have lost at least two presidential elections despite getting more votes. I believe in getting rid of it despite what any poll says. So do most Dems. Their leaders do themselves no favors though waiting until results like this to complain.

Please no more super-delegates, district-wide (as opposed to states) primary votes, caucuses, the works. Whoever gets the most votes wins.

[Virginiá]

Corrupt politicians would have no scruples enrolling non-citizens to vote if they could get away with it.  The role of the immigration issue would give many non-citizens motive to play along if this could be pulled off.  That wouldn't be the whole of it, but it would be a source of illegal votes that could be delivered for one party or another.

I see what you're getting at, but it's an absurd way to go about stealing an election. It would be safer to just hack the voting machines or make it an inside job. Enrolling thousands of people to rack up votes in a statewide election is a huge undertaking and would require a lot of people who are not going to be loyal or all that competent in what they are doing. Mistakes will be made, and it only takes one. Huge risk for little reward, especially in California.

If folks are so concerned about double voting, then have a picture taken of anyone without an ID and store it to be used in a facial recognition search after the election, to weed out double voters. NH saves pictures of people without IDs iirc, so it's not a foreign concept. I doubt many people would want to commit in-person voter fraud at all, but especially not if their picture is going to be taken. Why have all this wonderful technology if we're not going to use it?

^stuff like that is why this voter ID debate drives me bonkers. For all this talk about voter fraud, why does the GOP never push to have voting machines upgraded & secured? People shouldn't worry about fking rare in-person fraud. They should worry about hacking. That's a real threat in some areas.

[Beet]

Non-citizens are not going to go along with voter fraud easily because they know it is a crime, and most of them are economically vulnerable, afraid of the authorities, and deadly terrified of being arrested and thrown into jail. This would mean loss of jobs, being thrown out of homes, etc. No, these people are not going to take that risk to commit voter fraud.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The tipping point state was better for the Democrats than the popular vote in 3 of the last 5 elections. It just happens that they manged to win the popular vote and lose the electoral vote in both of the other two.