The electoral college
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 07:21:32 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  The electoral college
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: The electoral college  (Read 520 times)
Bismarck
Chancellor
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,343


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 11, 2016, 10:59:45 AM »

Does this election demonstrate that the electoral college is a good thing because it makes sure a candidate has broad support rather than running up a large margin in just a handful of states? Or does it validate the flaw in the electoral college that the winner of the PV doesn't always win?
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 11, 2016, 11:30:45 AM »

It demonstrates that it works.

There isn't a national election but rather 51 separate State/District elections for the Federal office of President.  The cumulative number of PV's is irrelevant. 
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 11, 2016, 11:31:48 AM »

It demonstrates that it works.

There isn't a national election but rather 51 separate State/District elections for the Federal office of President.  The cumulative number of PV's is irrelevant. 

But why ought that to be the case?
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 11, 2016, 12:32:40 PM »

It demonstrates that it works.

There isn't a national election but rather 51 separate State/District elections for the Federal office of President.  The cumulative number of PV's is irrelevant. 

But why ought that to be the case?

Because we are a Union of 50 sovereign States/Commonwealths that function under a single Federal government. 
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 11, 2016, 12:35:05 PM »

It demonstrates that it works.

There isn't a national election but rather 51 separate State/District elections for the Federal office of President.  The cumulative number of PV's is irrelevant. 

But why ought that to be the case?

Because we are a Union of 50 sovereign States/Commonwealths that function under a single Federal government. 

Then why go through the motions of having a nationwide election at all? Why not have the president be appointed by state governments, or by Congress? At least that wouldn't falsely wear the clothes of popular democracy.
Logged
No War, but the War on Christmas
iBizzBee
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,798

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 11, 2016, 12:37:44 PM »



Hypocrites, every last one of you.

#NotMyPresident #DictatorElect
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 11, 2016, 12:39:52 PM »

Let's be real. If the Electoral College didn't exist, and we were all tasked to come up with a national voting system, no one would be able to defend such an asinine system. Probably it would never even occur to anyone. It's an archaic relic of the distant past, just like having election day on a non-holiday work day.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 11, 2016, 12:53:46 PM »

There are many federal nations with elected presidents. As a far as I'm aware, all but one are fine with using a national vote.
Logged
Gass3268
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,478
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: November 11, 2016, 01:02:38 PM »

Electoral College needs to die and its actually much easier to kill it than people think too.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: November 11, 2016, 01:12:10 PM »

Electoral College needs to die and its actually much easier to kill it than people think too.

It would require Amending the Constitution.
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: November 11, 2016, 01:15:32 PM »

Electoral College needs to die and its actually much easier to kill it than people think too.

It would require Amending the Constitution.

Good luck getting 2/3 of the States to approve it. 
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: November 11, 2016, 01:17:16 PM »

Does this election demonstrate that the electoral college is a good thing because it makes sure a candidate has broad support rather than running up a large margin in just a handful of states? Or does it validate the flaw in the electoral college that the winner of the PV doesn't always win?

both.

on balance, I'm for repealing it but only on the condition of instant-runoff voting.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: November 11, 2016, 01:18:11 PM »

Electoral College needs to die and its actually much easier to kill it than people think too.

It would require Amending the Constitution.

Good luck getting 2/3 of the States to approve it. 

it needs 3/4 of the states.
Logged
Gass3268
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,478
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: November 11, 2016, 01:19:37 PM »

Electoral College needs to die and its actually much easier to kill it than people think too.

It would require Amending the Constitution.

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: November 11, 2016, 01:21:30 PM »

Electoral College needs to die and its actually much easier to kill it than people think too.

It would require Amending the Constitution.

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

That doesn't kill the Electoral College.  In fact, it strengthens it while simultaneously making the whole situation even more surreal.  

Logged
Erich Maria Remarque
LittleBigPlanet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,646
Sweden


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: November 11, 2016, 01:29:29 PM »

pocrites, every last one of you.

#NotMyPresident #DictatorElect

Lol, why is it hypocrisy? I think EC is stupid, but it is the rules of the game right now.
Logged
SteveRogers
duncan298
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,155


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -5.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: November 11, 2016, 04:38:26 PM »

Considering that the electoral college was literally designed to keep a wave of populist furor from electing a demagogue like Trump, this election proves that keeping the electoral college around after every state decided 200 years ago to allocate their electoral votes by a statewide popular vote is counterproductive and contradictory to the point of lunacy.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: November 11, 2016, 04:42:23 PM »

Considering that the electoral college was literally designed to keep a wave of populist furor from electing a demagogue like Trump, this election proves that keeping the electoral college around after every state decided 200 years ago to allocate their electoral votes by a statewide popular vote is counterproductive and contradictory to the point of lunacy.

"...every state..."  That is incorrect.  Maine and Kansas split their EVs, and there are proposals in California, North Carolina, and other states to consider doing the same.

And Trump's win is short of a populist furor.  He won the majority vote in only 30 States/Commonwealths, and that is with less than half of the total registered voters nationwide participating in the 2016 election.
Logged
Zarn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,820


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: November 11, 2016, 05:34:52 PM »

The EC did exactly what us was supposed to do this year. You cannot just win mostly coastal and high population density states and call it a win. Without the Rust Belt, the Democrats become a regional party. It is their job to have a more inclusive appeal. They failed miserably, because they did not want to listen. The EC punished them for living in an ivory tower.

The form of government in the US is a federal republic, not a democracy. Liberty is meant to be and end not a means. The EC is part of a checks and balances system meant to keep impulse decisions at bay. Trump's election was a result of the careless actions of the Democratic Party overplaying it's hand. Their impulse decisions ended their control.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: November 11, 2016, 08:49:14 PM »

Trump's election was a result of the careless actions of the Democratic Party

...and of the equally careless actions of the Republican Party.
Logged
pikachu
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,180
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: November 11, 2016, 09:21:05 PM »

The EC did exactly what us was supposed to do this year. You cannot just win mostly coastal and high population density states and call it a win. Without the Rust Belt, the Democrats become a regional party. It is their job to have a more inclusive appeal. They failed miserably, because they did not want to listen. The EC punished them for living in an ivory tower.

The form of government in the US is a federal republic, not a democracy. Liberty is meant to be and end not a means. The EC is part of a checks and balances system meant to keep impulse decisions at bay. Trump's election was a result of the careless actions of the Democratic Party overplaying it's hand. Their impulse decisions ended their control.

If we just used a popular vote, can't you make the same argument, but just substituting GOP for Democrats, and cities/minorities for Rust Belt?

Anyway, like Crabcake said, every other federal republic with a directly-elected president doesn't use an electoral college. Not really sure why we have to be special in this regard....
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: November 11, 2016, 09:31:41 PM »

Rural people are SpecialTM and represent the Real America, you see. No victory is legitimate without them. Inner city dwellers, otoh, f them. At least they have big towers to look at even if they live in hollowed out slums.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: November 11, 2016, 09:35:19 PM »

It it always amusing how losers take the results from an election operating around 1 set of rules and blindly apply them to another set of rules.

Winning the PV is like getting more yards in a football game.
Logged
Sorenroy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,697
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -5.91

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: November 11, 2016, 11:29:12 PM »

The EC did exactly what us was supposed to do this year. You cannot just win mostly coastal and high population density states and call it a win. Without the Rust Belt, the Democrats become a regional party. It is their job to have a more inclusive appeal. They failed miserably, because they did not want to listen. The EC punished them for living in an ivory tower.

The form of government in the US is a federal republic, not a democracy. Liberty is meant to be and end not a means. The EC is part of a checks and balances system meant to keep impulse decisions at bay. Trump's election was a result of the careless actions of the Democratic Party overplaying it's hand. Their impulse decisions ended their control.

I find what you are saying problematic on three counts.

Firstly, the Electoral College does not prevent regionalism, it encourages it. pikachu brings up an excellent point when he says that being punished for appealing to a small audience goes both ways. Just like Democrats can be said to have been punished for winning only "mostly coastal and high population density states", the Republicans were in the same way rewarded for ignoring them.

Think of it this way, neither party really needs inclusive appeal because there are so many "safe states" that they only need to appeal to swing state voters. For example, as a Republican, you can completely ignore Californians because even a 20 point swing will still not be enough for you to win the state. As a Democrat, there is no reason to try to broaden your base and appeal to even more of California's voters because you're going to win the state anyway, so why bother?

To add to that first point before we go on, there is a reason that the parties sometimes shift their platforms. If a national vote system was implemented and Republicans found themselves losing election after election, they would change their own platform to appeal to a larger audience. In that same manner, if Democrats found themselves in a losing position, they would start trying to appeal to more rural voters.


Secondly, the Electoral College does nothing to promote a "more inclusive appeal". Briefly, because this is not the main point I want to make, take a look over at Trump's support among America's minority populations. I would not say that he was able to garner very broad appeal with that group. In fact, both sides vie more for winning their key constituencies by larger and larger margins rather than becoming more diverse in their appeals. But back to the point that Democrats lost because they failed to appeal to Rust Belt voters. Michigan, key among those rust belt states, currently stands at 47.6 to 47.3, a mere 0.3% difference. To say that Clinton failed to appeal to Michigan's voters is a misnomer. It is true that she didn't appeal to them quite as much as Trump, but she still received roughly half of their support.

In fact, if your point is that inclusive appeal is important, then the Electoral College is nothing but a hindrance. For instance, if your goal was to push both sides towards appealing to white men, the electoral college would make it so that the only appeals you would make would be to white men in swing states. Even though the policies put forward by both sides do tend to stretch beyond state boundaries, that is only a somewhat happy accident. Just like with my first point, the inclusive appeal that you are hoping for only has to be inclusive of people whose votes will matter on election night.


Finally, you say that the Electoral College is an important part of our checks and balances system. In a country where Electoral College voters are picked by the parties and face fines or prison time for voting against winner of the popular vote in their state, the Electoral College is nothing more than a obstacle to the presidency. I know some Democrats have a bad habit of saying Trump is Hitler, but if Hitler ran, there would be nothing in the Electoral College set up to stop him. The checks and balances on the office of president are the other branches and laws, not the election system itself.


So basically, the Electoral College is anywhere from an unnecessary extra step to a complete detriment depending on how you look at it. The only positives that it presents are things that would be even better without it.
Logged
Zarn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,820


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: November 12, 2016, 08:20:31 AM »

Swing states shift from time to time. If a region (like the Rust Belt) decides it no longer wants to be a safe zone for a political party, then it's relevance increases. It's not entirely the Republican Party's fault that the coastal states vote straight ticket D or entirely the Democratic Party's fault much of the Southeast voted straight ticker R. The fault lies with the people that refuse to see things objectively. Relevance would change with these regions, once that changes.

Also, diversity does not mean ethnic minorities. That is a quite bigoted way of looking at things. Ethnic background should not develop a person's political leanings. Diversity means bringing in people with various lifestyles. That should include farmers, ranchers, hunters, factory workers, miners, lumberjacks, and all the other jobs you might consider deplorable.

If you remove the EC, you will only have politicians ever campaign in major population areas, limiting the diversity quite drastically. No one will appeal to rural areas, small towns, or even smaller metro areas. There would be no need to do so.

The Democrats need to remove themselves from the ivory tower, or they will continue to lose influence. Establishment GOP was doing exactly the same thing.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.048 seconds with 12 queries.