Isn't abolishing EC, etc. a Democratic power grab in some voters eyes?

[Progressive Pessimist]

Under the current system, it's theoretically possible to become President with 22% of the popular vote.

Are any other elections in the US decided by an electoral college?

A very good point. One can argue that voters of certain demographics are just as disadvantaged in statewide elections as they are national ones. Our national elections are essentially just a lot of statewide elections anyway. So, why the distinction?

[Slander and/or Libel]

It is a Democratic power grab, because a national popular vote would require the Federalization of election/voting procedures, remove state control over the franchise, and preclude state courts from having the ability to fairly resolve electoral disputes. 

The Founders’ wise intention in establishing the electoral college was to build a metaphysical “wall” around each state so election procedures/controversies could have zero impact beyond the affected state.  A national popular vote nessecarily demolishes this wall

First off, it was in no Manner shape or form the Founders intent. Their intent was to elect learned men who would confab to pick a new president, similar to the way State legislatures used to pick senators. It was grossly undemocratic and fell by the wayside almost immediately. Absolutely zilch to do with limiting election contests and controversies to individual states.

Secondly, modern history shows us that there is absolutely zero sense or benefit to having any such election controversies limited to a single state. All that does is allow a single swing State's corrupt apparatus to Poison an election for the other 49 states. Look no further to How Florida handled its recount in 2000 under Catherine Harris, et al.

1.  It was obviously the intent of the Founders to establish a separation of powers between the federal and state governments, of which the electoral college is an integral component (as it is the only check state governments have on the executive branch of government).  An electoral college is a necessary consequence of a federal system where state governments maintain control over the franchise.  Transitioning to a national popular vote requires the federalization of our elections, and that's not something that I suspect a majority of Americans would support.

2.  The electoral college is actually the only mechanism that could have resolved the Florida election debacle.  The protracted recount had no impact on any outcome other than Florida's 25 electoral votes, and if Florida had been allowed to continue its recounts (as it probably should have), then Congress would have ultimately decided the fate of Florida's electors.  It's unclear how an excruciatingly close election would be decided under a national popular vote - a nationwide recount?  A close national election under the popular vote would trigger hundreds of lawsuits in Federal court, which could make an election unresolvable for months.

But if we had a national popular vote in 2000, the margin of error in Florida wouldn’t have mattered. Gore would have won the nationwide vote by over half a million votes. No recount required.

Sure, you could hypothetically have a razor-close nationwide popular vote. And sure, a nationwide recount sounds hard and could take a while. But it can obviously be done. Other populous, developed democracies elect presidents all the time by nationwide vote without devolving into chaos. Is there some reason why France can count votes but the idea is deemed impossible here? So why exactly would it be better to leave the fate of a close election up to the peculiar quirks of one state’s electoral bureaucracy a la Florida in 2000?

Since you effectively asked the proper question to his second point, I will respond to its first. The Electoral College does nothing to create a federalist division in electing a president. While I agree with prior posts that it is silly to have 50 different standards and cruise tours voting in what should be a national election, even if we continue to allow a state to enforce individual standards, it doesn't begin to answer the question why the ultimate election should still be decided by some archaic division of votes over popular election.

The two issues are literally comparing apples and airplanes.

I've already answered this question.  Doing a national popular vote under the current system quickly establishes a "race to the bottom" where states are incentivized to pass laws increasing their influence over the national outcome (i.e., California keeping a Republican off the ballot because he won't release his income tax returns).  The "archaic division of votes" fixes each state's influence over the national outcome in a way that deincentivizes this kind of behavior. 

No, you have offered no reason whatsoever why certain swing States under one party control at the state level, such as Ohio and Florida, or intermittently New Hampshire in Colorado, and to a lesser degree North Carolina, wouldn't passed such laws 2 increase their influence over the Electoral College outcome. There is literally nothing you've stated that isn't applicable to an electoral college situation. Furthermore, even non swing states trying to do things such as band Republicans from the presidential ballot would be struck down on constitutional grounds so fast it would make one's head swim.

Right, exactly. And the payoff is way greater! If those states could establish rules that swing just enough votes, or suppress just enough votes, then all of the state's electoral votes flip from one candidate to the other. It's not just the electoral college that's the problem, but the fact of winner-take-all apportionment of electoral votes in most states, and the incentives that creates in the closest states.

[emailking]

I've already answered this question.  Doing a national popular vote under the current system quickly establishes a "race to the bottom" where states are incentivized to pass laws increasing their influence over the national outcome (i.e., California keeping a Republican off the ballot because he won't release his income tax returns).  The "archaic division of votes" fixes each state's influence over the national outcome in a way that deincentivizes this kind of behavior. 

Are you saying they would drive up the signature requirements to appear on the ballot to absurd levels? That's the only way I can think of to keep a Republican off the ballot that isn't blatantly unconsistutional. It would drive off 3rd parties too.

Republicans could always write in the name of their candidate, and the write-ins would be counted (since the name isn't on the ballot) at additional cost to the state. Unless you're going to take away write-ins too.

[Crumpets]

I've already answered this question.  Doing a national popular vote under the current system quickly establishes a "race to the bottom" where states are incentivized to pass laws increasing their influence over the national outcome (i.e., California keeping a Republican off the ballot because he won't release his income tax returns).  The "archaic division of votes" fixes each state's influence over the national outcome in a way that deincentivizes this kind of behavior.  

Are you saying they would drive up the signature requirements to appear on the ballot to absurd levels? That's the only way I can think of to keep a Republican off the ballot that isn't blatantly unconsistutional. It would drive off 3rd parties too.

Republicans could always write in the name of their candidate, and the write-ins would be counted (since the name isn't on the ballot) at additional cost to the state. Unless you're going to take away write-ins too.

Also, don't states already have this power and incentive? Couldn't Ohio remove the Democrat from the ballot if they really wanted? We saw this same issue come up in the deep South in 1960 and 1964, it just didn't end up flipping the election, so nobody cared.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I dislike the stereotype that Americans are parochial - I don't find them to be any more insular than any other nationality from my experience - but the lines of argument in this thread does make me wonder. People do know that there are plenty of countries without ECs that still have politics driven by their rural and hinterland regions right? Heck, America is in a better place than most in that regards because it doesn't even have a single gigantic Metropole (e.g. Greater Seoul) that contains the majority of the population.

I also wonder how many here would make the same enthusiastic arguments to boost the "representative vote" of a large ethnic minority that has historically suffered under laws supported by the ethnic majority?

Under the current system, it's theoretically possible to become President with 22% of the popular vote.

Are any other elections in the US decided by an electoral college?

Mississippi, iirc, requires the winner to receive both the popular vote and a majority of Electoral Districts to automatically win, creating a sort of electoral collage.

The really interesting thing about the EC that nobody talks about is the utterly insane methods of selecting a president if nobody reaches half of all electoral votes, something which obviously has not happened since the original Grand Bargain iirc, but would potentially cause either a constituental crisis or a completely illegitimate administration usurping power.

[Del Tachi]

Under the current system, it's theoretically possible to become President with 22% of the popular vote. 

Hypothetically, someone could win the electoral college by winning only 11 popular votes if you assume only one person turns-out to vote in the 11 most populous states.

Are any other elections in the US decided by an electoral college?

There are no other federal governments in the United States.

[Del Tachi]

It is a Democratic power grab, because a national popular vote would require the Federalization of election/voting procedures, remove state control over the franchise, and preclude state courts from having the ability to fairly resolve electoral disputes. 

The Founders’ wise intention in establishing the electoral college was to build a metaphysical “wall” around each state so election procedures/controversies could have zero impact beyond the affected state.  A national popular vote nessecarily demolishes this wall

First off, it was in no Manner shape or form the Founders intent. Their intent was to elect learned men who would confab to pick a new president, similar to the way State legislatures used to pick senators. It was grossly undemocratic and fell by the wayside almost immediately. Absolutely zilch to do with limiting election contests and controversies to individual states.

Secondly, modern history shows us that there is absolutely zero sense or benefit to having any such election controversies limited to a single state. All that does is allow a single swing State's corrupt apparatus to Poison an election for the other 49 states. Look no further to How Florida handled its recount in 2000 under Catherine Harris, et al.

1.  It was obviously the intent of the Founders to establish a separation of powers between the federal and state governments, of which the electoral college is an integral component (as it is the only check state governments have on the executive branch of government).  An electoral college is a necessary consequence of a federal system where state governments maintain control over the franchise.  Transitioning to a national popular vote requires the federalization of our elections, and that's not something that I suspect a majority of Americans would support.

2.  The electoral college is actually the only mechanism that could have resolved the Florida election debacle.  The protracted recount had no impact on any outcome other than Florida's 25 electoral votes, and if Florida had been allowed to continue its recounts (as it probably should have), then Congress would have ultimately decided the fate of Florida's electors.  It's unclear how an excruciatingly close election would be decided under a national popular vote - a nationwide recount?  A close national election under the popular vote would trigger hundreds of lawsuits in Federal court, which could make an election unresolvable for months.

But if we had a national popular vote in 2000, the margin of error in Florida wouldn’t have mattered. Gore would have won the nationwide vote by over half a million votes. No recount required.

Sure, you could hypothetically have a razor-close nationwide popular vote. And sure, a nationwide recount sounds hard and could take a while. But it can obviously be done. Other populous, developed democracies elect presidents all the time by nationwide vote without devolving into chaos. Is there some reason why France can count votes but the idea is deemed impossible here? So why exactly would it be better to leave the fate of a close election up to the peculiar quirks of one state’s electoral bureaucracy a la Florida in 2000?

Since you effectively asked the proper question to his second point, I will respond to its first. The Electoral College does nothing to create a federalist division in electing a president. While I agree with prior posts that it is silly to have 50 different standards and cruise tours voting in what should be a national election, even if we continue to allow a state to enforce individual standards, it doesn't begin to answer the question why the ultimate election should still be decided by some archaic division of votes over popular election.

The two issues are literally comparing apples and airplanes.

I've already answered this question.  Doing a national popular vote under the current system quickly establishes a "race to the bottom" where states are incentivized to pass laws increasing their influence over the national outcome (i.e., California keeping a Republican off the ballot because he won't release his income tax returns).  The "archaic division of votes" fixes each state's influence over the national outcome in a way that deincentivizes this kind of behavior. 

No, you have offered no reason whatsoever why certain swing States under one party control at the state level, such as Ohio and Florida, or intermittently New Hampshire in Colorado, and to a lesser degree North Carolina, wouldn't passed such laws 2 increase their influence over the Electoral College outcome. There is literally nothing you've stated that isn't applicable to an electoral college situation. Furthermore, even non swing states trying to do things such as band Republicans from the presidential ballot would be struck down on constitutional grounds so fast it would make one's head swim.

Except that the influence that any particular state holds over the outcome is explicitly fixed under the electoral college in direct proportion to a state's population.  A state may act to expand or limit the franchise in ways that are clearly partisan, but that doesn't afford them any more influence in the electoral college.  Not the same is true with a national popular vote scheme, where limits/expansions of the franchise directly allow a state to increase its electoral influence.  It'd be akin to letting states pass laws to give themselves more electors.

I'm not saying that the electoral college removes any incentive for statewide funny business with the vote.  However, the electoral college limits the impact of any change in voting laws to that specific state's electors.

I am not opposed to alternate schemes to affording electoral votes - I'm intrigued by the Maine-Nebraska method or even proportional allocation, as opposed to WTA.  I would like to point out that even the most realistic path to a national popular vote, the NPVIC, is itself a reform of the electoral college rather than abolition of it.  But I do believe that the electoral college is a logical consequence of a federal government where states maintain control over the franchise, and I haven't really heard any explicit arguments as to why that isn't the case.   

[emailking]

The really interesting thing about the EC that nobody talks about is the utterly insane methods of selecting a president if nobody reaches half of all electoral votes, something which obviously has not happened since the original Grand Bargain iirc, but would potentially cause either a constituental crisis or a completely illegitimate administration usurping power.

It happened in 1824 unless I misunderstand what you mean.

Instead of letting state delegations choose from among 3, which could stay in limbo for a long time (as happened in House of Cards for example) I think a better system would be to let the House pick from the top 2. The Speaker gets an additional tie breaking vote if there's a tie.

Of course a popular vote with ranked choice voting is the best method and avoids all of that.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The really interesting thing about the EC that nobody talks about is the utterly insane methods of selecting a president if nobody reaches half of all electoral votes, something which obviously has not happened since the original Grand Bargain iirc, but would potentially cause either a constituental crisis or a completely illegitimate administration usurping power.

It happened in 1824 unless I misunderstand what you mean.

Instead of letting state delegations choose from among 3, which could stay in limbo for a long time (as happened in House of Cards for example) I think a better system would be to let the House pick from the top 2. The Speaker gets an additional tie breaking vote if there's a tie.

Of course a popular vote with ranked choice voting is the best method and avoids all of that.

I meant to say "the original Corrupt Bargain" but said Grand Bargain instead.

[GoTfan]

I ask again: are any other elections in the United States decided by an electoral college?

[SteveRogers]

I ask again: are any other elections in the United States decided by an electoral college?

No, but to be fair, the Supreme Court has pretty much said that the states can’t set up their own electoral colleges as it would violate the one person, one vote rule.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I ask again: are any other elections in the United States decided by an electoral college?

No, but to be fair, the Supreme Court has pretty much said that the states can’t set up their own electoral colleges as it would violate the one person, one vote rule.

So why is that okay at the national level? Just because it's what we've done for centuries?

[SteveRogers]

I ask again: are any other elections in the United States decided by an electoral college?

No, but to be fair, the Supreme Court has pretty much said that the states can’t set up their own electoral colleges as it would violate the one person, one vote rule.

So why is that okay at the national level? Just because it's what we've done for centuries?

Yeah basically. Because the electoral college is explicitly specified in the Constitution, the equal protection clause can’t have repealed it. Same with the Senate.

[GoTfan]

I ask again: are any other elections in the United States decided by an electoral college?

No, but to be fair, the Supreme Court has pretty much said that the states can’t set up their own electoral colleges as it would violate the one person, one vote rule.

And the electoral college doesn't?