Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College

[Vasall des Midas]

Having a popular vote plurality election to allocate all of a state's electoral votes is a perfectly legal way of doing things should a state choose to do so. It's also 100% against the way the founding fathers intended this rule. Remember that. We're already exploiting a loophole to make things democratic. This just takes it one step further.

I wouldn't argue that the founders intended to be anti-democratic in the selection of the electors.  Except for the 1789 election where the process of choosing the Federal government was still being established, and 1800 where several state legislatures chose to not trust their voters and paid the price as a result, there have been a majority of electors elected by the voters.

What the founders had no conception of was of party politics.  That has had a greater effect upon the Presidential election process than the gradual adoption of universal suffrage.

Arguably 42 of 69 electors appointed in 1789 were popularly elected to some extent.  In Massachusetts the voters nominated 2 electors from each of 8 districts which the legislature chose between, and in New Hampshire, electors needed a majority.  Since none received a majority, the legislature chose the electors.

I don't think popular election of electors is the same as de-facto popular election of a presidential ticket via a mode of counting that makes use of electors.

[ARescan]

There's a reason this system is here. We can get it wrong sometimes.

[I left.]

There's a reason this system is here. We can get it wrong sometimes.

Yes indeed, although you probably mean it a little differently than I do

[Bo]

Would you Democrats be OK with keeping the Electoral College if Gore would have won the EV and Bush would have won the PV? You know that many people considered this to be a serious possiblity right before the 2000 election.

[I left.]

Would you Democrats be OK with keeping the Electoral College if Gore would have won the EV and Bush would have won the PV? You know that many people considered this to be a serious possiblity right before the 2000 election.

Of course not. The Electoral College is an inherently undemocratic system, no matter who winds up winning it.

[Vepres]

Would you Democrats be OK with keeping the Electoral College if Gore would have won the EV and Bush would have won the PV? You know that many people considered this to be a serious possiblity right before the 2000 election.

Of course not. The Electoral College is an inherently undemocratic system, no matter who winds up winning it.

The executive branch isn't supposed to be fully Democratic, that's the congress' job. Just like a Prime Minister isn't directly elected.

[Beet]

Would you Democrats be OK with keeping the Electoral College if Gore would have won the EV and Bush would have won the PV? You know that many people considered this to be a serious possiblity right before the 2000 election.

Of course not. The Electoral College is an inherently undemocratic system, no matter who winds up winning it.

The executive branch isn't supposed to be fully Democratic, that's the congress' job. Just like a Prime Minister isn't directly elected.

Congress isn't democratic. Are you kidding? A person in North Dakota has 57 times more power than a person in California. And then you have the filibuster, which gives constituents of the minority 50% more power than constituents of the majority. And then you have D.C. which has zero representation period but is taxed like hell. Congress is the biggest joke in history.

[I left.]

Would you Democrats be OK with keeping the Electoral College if Gore would have won the EV and Bush would have won the PV? You know that many people considered this to be a serious possiblity right before the 2000 election.

Of course not. The Electoral College is an inherently undemocratic system, no matter who winds up winning it.

The executive branch isn't supposed to be fully Democratic, that's the congress' job. Just like a Prime Minister isn't directly elected.

The Congress, of course, is also not Democratic. Look at the unequal representation in the Senate. (Not to mention gerrymandered districts.)

In addition to that....why shouldn't the executive branch be democratic....other than that being the "Founders'" intention?

[Vepres]

Would you Democrats be OK with keeping the Electoral College if Gore would have won the EV and Bush would have won the PV? You know that many people considered this to be a serious possiblity right before the 2000 election.

Of course not. The Electoral College is an inherently undemocratic system, no matter who winds up winning it.

The executive branch isn't supposed to be fully Democratic, that's the congress' job. Just like a Prime Minister isn't directly elected.

The Congress, of course, is also not Democratic. Look at the unequal representation in the Senate. (Not to mention gerrymandered districts.)

In addition to that....why shouldn't the executive branch be democratic....other than that being the "Founders'" intention?

I'm a strong believer in federalism. Which is why I support the electoral college and Senate (though not filibuster, you change my opinion on that )

Would you Democrats be OK with keeping the Electoral College if Gore would have won the EV and Bush would have won the PV? You know that many people considered this to be a serious possiblity right before the 2000 election.

Of course not. The Electoral College is an inherently undemocratic system, no matter who winds up winning it.

The executive branch isn't supposed to be fully Democratic, that's the congress' job. Just like a Prime Minister isn't directly elected.

Congress isn't democratic. Are you kidding? A person in North Dakota has 57 times more power than a person in California. And then you have the filibuster, which gives constituents of the minority 50% more power than constituents of the majority. And then you have D.C. which has zero representation period but is taxed like hell. Congress is the biggest joke in history.

DC should have representatives IMO.

Besides, this is a check on the majority, preventing the tyranny of the minority.

Without the Senate, the big states would get far more than their fair share of federal dollars, at least that would be the logical outcome.

[Beet]

Would you Democrats be OK with keeping the Electoral College if Gore would have won the EV and Bush would have won the PV? You know that many people considered this to be a serious possiblity right before the 2000 election.

Of course not. The Electoral College is an inherently undemocratic system, no matter who winds up winning it.

The executive branch isn't supposed to be fully Democratic, that's the congress' job. Just like a Prime Minister isn't directly elected.

Congress isn't democratic. Are you kidding? A person in North Dakota has 57 times more power than a person in California. And then you have the filibuster, which gives constituents of the minority 50% more power than constituents of the majority. And then you have D.C. which has zero representation period but is taxed like hell. Congress is the biggest joke in history.

DC should have representatives IMO.

Besides, this is a check on the majority, preventing the tyranny of the minority.

Without the Senate, the big states would get far more than their fair share of federal dollars, at least that would be the logical outcome.

As opposed to now where they get far less?

And not to be inordinately partisan, which I know I sometimes am, but when it's Dems' turn to be in the minority the moderate heroes always come out to ensure that the majority has its way. Just look at the "gang of 14" from 2005 for instance. Where is the "gang of 14" of 2009???

[I left.]

As it is now....the minority has more power than the majority, which for all practical purposes means that they are a majority.

It's just a matter of who gets more money.....and I would tend to believe that the greater number of people should have a greater amount of power, as opposed to the other way around.

[Χahar]

In what way is a system that occasionally has the minority win a check against tyranny of the majority?

[Vepres]

As it is now....the minority has more power than the majority, which for all practical purposes means that they are a majority.

It's just a matter of who gets more money.....and I would tend to believe that the greater number of people should have a greater amount of power, as opposed to the other way around.

Apparently the house of reps doesn't exist.

Edit: They do have more power. Honestly, the house is controlled by people from big states: Pelosi, Hoyer, Boehner, Waxman. That is why the Senate exists, to balance that.

[I left.]

As it is now....the minority has more power than the majority, which for all practical purposes means that they are a majority.

It's just a matter of who gets more money.....and I would tend to believe that the greater number of people should have a greater amount of power, as opposed to the other way around.

Apparently the house of reps doesn't exist.

But it can't do anything by itself, it's worthless because everything has to be approved by a body that has very unequal representation.

Granted, the minority can't push its agenda through against the will of the majority.....but it's impossible for the majority to push anything through against the will of the minority.

It creates a deadlock that is extremely unfair, as people in small states have MUCH MUCH more power than people from moderately sized or large states.


As said, it's just a question of who actually holds power. Under the present system, it's clearly not the supposed "majority".

[Vepres]

As it is now....the minority has more power than the majority, which for all practical purposes means that they are a majority.

It's just a matter of who gets more money.....and I would tend to believe that the greater number of people should have a greater amount of power, as opposed to the other way around.

Apparently the house of reps doesn't exist.

But it can't do anything by itself, it's worthless because everything has to be approved by a body that has very unequal representation.

Granted, the minority can't push its agenda through against the will of the majority.....but it's impossible for the majority to push anything through against the will of the minority.

It creates a deadlock that is extremely unfair, as people in small states have MUCH MUCH more power than people from moderately sized or large states.


As said, it's just a question of who actually holds power. Under the present system, it's clearly not the supposed "majority".

I haven't seen the Senate do anything that blatantly favored small states. (except for unethical things like buying votes.)

I feel like you're just mad about healthcare, but maybe I'm wrong.

[I left.]

That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying very few people in a couple of small states are able to block anything they want.

Therefore, these people in small states hold very disproportionate power. Considering that the Senate must agree to everything (not to mention with 60 votes....and good that you've come to accept that shouldn't be necessary ), that means it doesn't mean much to control a majority in the House.....because it has to go through the Senate.

Why should my influence on healthcare be 10 times lower than a guy in Wyoming has?

[Vepres]

That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying very few people in a couple of small states are able to block anything they want.

Therefore, these people in small states hold very disproportionate power. Considering that the Senate must agree to everything (not to mention with 60 votes....and good that you've come to accept that shouldn't be necessary ), that means it doesn't mean much to control a majority in the House.....because it has to go through the Senate.

Why should my influence on healthcare be 10 times lower than a guy in Wyoming has?

Look, that's all fine in theory. Think about, though. The odds that all 50 Senators from small states would oppose something is absurd. Some are Dem, some are Rep, and some are split.

If the Senate was perfectly representative, the Republicans would have 45 seats, so it works both ways.

[I left.]

That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying very few people in a couple of small states are able to block anything they want.

Therefore, these people in small states hold very disproportionate power. Considering that the Senate must agree to everything (not to mention with 60 votes....and good that you've come to accept that shouldn't be necessary ), that means it doesn't mean much to control a majority in the House.....because it has to go through the Senate.

Why should my influence on healthcare be 10 times lower than a guy in Wyoming has?

Look, that's all fine in theory. Think about, though. The odds that all 50 Senators from small states would oppose something is absurd. Some are Dem, some are Rep, and some are split.

If the Senate was perfectly representative, the Republicans would have 45 seats, so it works both ways.

Yeah, but it doesn't change the fact that a person in Wyoming has ten times the influence that I do.

[Vepres]

That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying very few people in a couple of small states are able to block anything they want.

Therefore, these people in small states hold very disproportionate power. Considering that the Senate must agree to everything (not to mention with 60 votes....and good that you've come to accept that shouldn't be necessary ), that means it doesn't mean much to control a majority in the House.....because it has to go through the Senate.

Why should my influence on healthcare be 10 times lower than a guy in Wyoming has?

Look, that's all fine in theory. Think about, though. The odds that all 50 Senators from small states would oppose something is absurd. Some are Dem, some are Rep, and some are split.

If the Senate was perfectly representative, the Republicans would have 45 seats, so it works both ways.

Yeah, but it doesn't change the fact that a person in Wyoming has ten times the influence that I do.

Again, in theory.

Can you cite an issue where the small states generally blocked or significantly modified to their advantage? You can't say healthcare, because Senators from Texas, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Ohio, Arizona, and Tennessee opposed it.

Besides, doesn't each state government, having its own sovereignty on many issues, deserve equal representation?

[I left.]

Again, in theory.

No, practically as well. Unless you believe every state has equal population?

Can you cite an issue where the small states generally blocked or significantly modified to their advantage? You can't say healthcare, because Senators from Texas, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Ohio, Arizona, and Tennessee opposed it.

That's true enough, but take the House of Representatives....where a public option was able to pass.
Sure, there were senators from big states that opposed healthcare, but if people in every state had roughly equal representation, then the partisan distribution would be different. Small states tend to have more conservatives. (Note that this assumes that the FPTP voting system is maintained. A proportional system of electing senators would actually benefit the Republicans currently....but that's only because they were destroyed in the last two elections.)

Of course, this isn't even mentioning Democrats that don't vote like Democrats simply because they represent states that Democrats shouldn't be really representing.

Besides, doesn't each state government, having its own sovereignty on many issues, deserve equal representation?

State governments don't deserve any representation. I don't care what the founders intended. State lines are artificial, why should I believe that precisely the lines that were drawn for states should determine the composition of the federal legislature? Why can't I divide New York into two parts and then demand that they get two senators each?

I only care about the people being represented equally.

[Vepres]

Again, in theory.

No, practically as well. Unless you believe every state has equal population?

Can you cite an issue where the small states generally blocked or significantly modified to their advantage? You can't say healthcare, because Senators from Texas, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Ohio, Arizona, and Tennessee opposed it.

That's true enough, but take the House of Representatives....where a public option was able to pass.
Sure, there were senators from big states that opposed healthcare, but if people in every state had roughly equal representation, then the partisan distribution would be different. Small states tend to have more conservatives. (Note that this assumes that the FPTP voting system is maintained. A proportional system of electing senators would actually benefit the Republicans currently....but that's only because they were destroyed in the last two elections.)

Of course, this isn't even mentioning Democrats that don't vote like Democrats simply because they represent states that Democrats shouldn't be really representing.

Besides, doesn't each state government, having its own sovereignty on many issues, deserve equal representation?

State governments don't deserve any representation. I don't care what the founders intended. State lines are artificial, why should I believe that precisely the lines that were drawn for states should determine the composition of the federal legislature? Why can't I divide New York into two parts and then demand that they get two senators each?

I only care about the people being represented equally.

The lines aren't arbitrary because over time each one developed its own economy. This happened with the original 13 colonies, and when new states were admitted, the lines were drawn to reflect that. 

As for small states, Vermont, Rhode Island, West Virginia (at the congressional level), New Mexico, and Hawaii are Democratic bastions, and North Dakota and Montana haven't been that harsh to Dems either.

Of course, it is fallacious to assume that direct representation of the people is always the best option. This system has worked for us, and it is a check on the majority, which is important. 

[Χahar]

You for some reason assume everything is political. It may be that Vermont elects socialists, and socialists are thus overrepresented in the Senate. But how on Earth does that change the fact that a vote in Vermont is far more valuable than a vote in California?

Let me put this in a different way, if I may. In the Kingdom of Prussia, the Abgeordnetenhaus was divided into three groups, with one-third of the seats being elected by that part of the population that paid one-third of the taxes. The richest thus had one-third of the seats, the middle one-third, and the lower class one-third. Do you have any objection to this?

[muon2]

State governments don't deserve any representation. I don't care what the founders intended. State lines are artificial, why should I believe that precisely the lines that were drawn for states should determine the composition of the federal legislature? Why can't I divide New York into two parts and then demand that they get two senators each?

I only care about the people being represented equally.

The State of New York could petition Congress to do exactly that. We've had threads on California's referendum to split. Historically, the big states have preferred to stay together when presented with a choice to split. I might conclude that they feel their size outweighs the extra representation the public would get in the Senate.

Governments throughout the world deal with bodies that at best approximate equality. The Council of the EU has one member to each member state regardless of population, and uses unweighted votes for some actions. Even the weighted vote gives Italy the same vote as Germany even though it has only 3/4 of Germany's population. Poland has 27 weighted votes compared to Germany's 29, but Poland has less than half the population. Malta has 3 votes but about 1/200th of Germany's population. That gives a person from Malta about 20 times the voting power of a German.

Representative districts in other countries are usually less precisely divided than the ones in the US. Very few countries gerrymander districts to get exact population equality the way we do. I don't think that level of gerrymandering necessarily serves the public.

Closer to home in IL the elected Supreme Court give 3 of 7 seats to Cook County. The Cook seats are elected countywide which is dominated by Chicago. It effectively gives Chicago 43% of the Court with about 23% of the state's population.

[Χahar]

Ah, but effective overrepresentation and actual overrepresentation are very different beasts. Chicago does not vote monolithically; the residents of the townships remain enfranchised. I see no reason for a state to have to jump through hoops for its people to get the representation they deserve.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Would you Democrats be OK with keeping the Electoral College if Gore would have won the EV and Bush would have won the PV? You know that many people considered this to be a serious possiblity right before the 2000 election.

Of course not. The Electoral College is an inherently undemocratic system, no matter who winds up winning it.

The executive branch isn't supposed to be fully Democratic, that's the congress' job. Just like a Prime Minister isn't directly elected.

Because it's Democratic to have the 21 least popular states block any legislation in the Senate.