Is there any plausible argument in favor of the electoral college?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 18, 2024, 11:15:24 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Process (Moderator: muon2)
  Is there any plausible argument in favor of the electoral college?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8
Author Topic: Is there any plausible argument in favor of the electoral college?  (Read 65455 times)
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: September 16, 2008, 05:04:43 PM »

The primary advantage of the electoral college is that in the event of a recount, the recount is held only in the States that are close.

A secondary advantage is that it does not require there to be a Federally imposed uniformity on voter registration requirements and the like.

A tertiary advantage is that in the event that a locality engages in vote fraud, the damage caused by that is limited, altho that is offset by the fact that a smaller degree of fraud in certain close States might have an effect.  Still, we certainly don't have to worry that vote fraud in Utah in DC will affect the presidential election anytime soon under the electoral college.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: September 17, 2008, 06:32:30 AM »

The primary advantage of the electoral college is that in the event of a recount, the recount is held only in the States that are close.

A secondary advantage is that it does not require there to be a Federally imposed uniformity on voter registration requirements and the like.

A tertiary advantage is that in the event that a locality engages in vote fraud, the damage caused by that is limited, altho that is offset by the fact that a smaller degree of fraud in certain close States might have an effect.  Still, we certainly don't have to worry that vote fraud in Utah in DC will affect the presidential election anytime soon under the electoral college.
In other words, fraud capacities can be moved to where they matter, as the GOP demonstrated in 2000. Tongue
Logged
Lunar
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,404
Ireland, Republic of
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: September 18, 2008, 03:35:01 AM »

My biggest complaint about the electoral college  (and to an additional extent, the primary process) is that it lets local issues destroy national policies.

Obama is against Yucca mountain not because he actually opposes it, but because Nevadans do.  Obama supports ethanol subsidies because of Iowa.  And both candidates are getting pretty darn populist lately because the election is decided in the states with the WORST economies (Rustbelt) instead of those who have constituents in growing areas.  So, instead of having national policies directed towards growth, we have them towards trying to keep economic hope alive where there is none (Rustbelt).

My side rant.
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: September 18, 2008, 09:57:32 PM »

It prevents a regional candidate from controlling the whole country.  I candidate can't run up huge totals in New York, New Jersey and New England and still win the presidency.

Instead, they could win narrow margins in enough states to get 270 electoral votes and get massively blown out in the rest of the country. Has that candidate really demonstrated broad appeal?

You really can't do that geographically.  A candidate can't do that unless he hs broad appeal across wide geographical areas.

You need support from wide geographic areas either way. There aren't enough people in one region to win the popular vote just based on that region.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,568


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: September 18, 2008, 09:59:19 PM »

You need more geographical appeal to win in the popular vote. Suppose every non-Lincoln vote in 1860 was for the same candidate. This anti-Lincoln candidate would break 60% of the popular vote, but Lincoln would still win. It wouldn't matter that Lincoln did terrible in the South, writing off huge areas of the country isn't a problem with the electoral vote.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: September 18, 2008, 10:09:44 PM »

The primary advantage of the electoral college is that in the event of a recount, the recount is held only in the States that are close.

But is that much of an advantage? And if so, how?

Is the argument that the number of ballots would be so large as to make a national recount impractical? If so, I can't understand the focus on re-counts--surely the first count is no different in that respect. But whatever the case may be, the assertion certainly isn't obvious, and no evidence has been offered to substantiate it.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: September 22, 2008, 10:11:49 AM »
« Edited: September 22, 2008, 10:13:50 AM by Nym90 »

The primary advantage of the electoral college is that in the event of a recount, the recount is held only in the States that are close.

But is that much of an advantage? And if so, how?

Is the argument that the number of ballots would be so large as to make a national recount impractical? If so, I can't understand the focus on re-counts--surely the first count is no different in that respect. But whatever the case may be, the assertion certainly isn't obvious, and no evidence has been offered to substantiate it.

A recount of the entire country wouldn't be any harder to do than a recount in one state, since you'd have more election workers available to assist in the recount.

One advantage of the EC that comes to mind is if the winning Prez or VP candidate dies after the election but before the EC votes (or if they die before the election but too late to remove their name from the ballot). It removes a potential complication since the electors would just vote for whomever the party chooses as their replacement.

Of course, one could counterargue (correctly, I'd add) that we may not want the electors themselves getting to decide the next President with no input at all from the voters in the event that the victorious candidate died post election.

But yeah, the only real good argument in favor of it is opportunity cost; the benefits of eliminating it would be less than the trouble and effort it would take to remove it, which would be better expended elsewhere. In the 1700's when interstate communication and travel were both far more difficult (to put it mildly) than they are today, it made sense for the winner of each individual state to matter, but not today.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: September 22, 2008, 06:09:08 PM »

The primary advantage of the electoral college is that in the event of a recount, the recount is held only in the States that are close.

But is that much of an advantage? And if so, how?

Is the argument that the number of ballots would be so large as to make a national recount impractical? If so, I can't understand the focus on re-counts--surely the first count is no different in that respect. But whatever the case may be, the assertion certainly isn't obvious, and no evidence has been offered to substantiate it.

A recount of the entire country wouldn't be any harder to do than a recount in one state, since you'd have more election workers available to assist in the recount.

If we had a uniform national ballot it might not be any harder, tho it would still be more expensive. However, we don't have a uniform national ballot and we are unlikely to even have one.  That means there will be questions that have to be decided at a local level, such as what happened in Florida in 2000, where some of the lawsuits were at the county-level.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: September 23, 2008, 01:37:14 AM »

It prevents a regional candidate from controlling the whole country.  I candidate can't run up huge totals in New York, New Jersey and New England and still win the presidency.

Instead, they could win narrow margins in enough states to get 270 electoral votes and get massively blown out in the rest of the country. Has that candidate really demonstrated broad appeal?

You really can't do that geographically.  A candidate can't do that unless he hs broad appeal across wide geographical areas.

You need support from wide geographic areas either way. There aren't enough people in one region to win the popular vote just based on that region.

You still could freeze out some regions.
Logged
Citizen James
James42
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,540


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -2.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: July 28, 2009, 04:03:07 PM »

It gives the smaller states more influence.  If you're in a small state, that's a good thing.

It grows out of the same compromise that gave us the Senate, balancing the power of the people at large against the power of individual states.
Logged
Vepres
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,032
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: August 05, 2009, 11:55:40 PM »

It gives the smaller states more influence.  If you're in a small state, that's a good thing.

It grows out of the same compromise that gave us the Senate, balancing the power of the people at large against the power of individual states.

Yeah. Many people say it favors small states, but come on. Obama and McCain spent much more time in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Florida than Montana, New Hampshire, or New Mexico.
Logged
pragmatic liberal
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 520


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: August 20, 2009, 12:38:14 PM »

There would need to be national ballot standards and there would probably need to be some kind of national presidential ballot (rather than have each state determine what candidates are on the ballot).

But if you can do that - and really that's just an issue of will - there's really no reason you couldn't do a national recount.

Besides, what many people fail to realize is that recounts are arguably much less likely in a national race than in a state-by-state race. Simple statistics posits that rates of error decline as you increase the sample size. A 1% difference in a 1,000,000 vote election is much more likely to be the result of error - and thereby overturned in a recount - than a 1% difference nationally in a 180 million vote race.

I mean, what election would have required a recount in the popular vote? Most statisticians say none in the past 100 years. Maybe Kennedy vs. Nixon. But there were recounts in 1916, 2000, and 2004 (in California, Florida, and Ohio). None of those elections would have required recounts if only the national popular vote counted.
Logged
You kip if you want to...
change08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,940
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: August 28, 2009, 07:03:29 PM »

Can you imagine if this happened? It never would though, since it's nearly impossible.



The red states on that map were won with 50.1% of the vote and the blue states were won with 90% or more of the vote. This would give the winner of the red states a 284-254 win. Take out NJ, NC or GA and you could still get a 269-269 tie and then congress elect the red state winner as President.
Logged
Sasquatch
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,077


Political Matrix
E: -8.13, S: -8.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: August 29, 2009, 03:52:43 AM »

I wish every state had a system like Maine and Nebraska.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: September 12, 2009, 07:10:23 AM »

I wish every state had a system like Maine and Nebraska.

I don't. Gerrymandering is bad enough as it is.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,778


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: September 16, 2009, 10:58:43 PM »

I wish every state had a system like Maine and Nebraska.

I don't. Gerrymandering is bad enough as it is.

True, but federal law could specify rules for CDs, then this system might work.
Logged
Smid
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,151
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: September 16, 2009, 11:14:56 PM »

I wish every state had a system like Maine and Nebraska.

I don't. Gerrymandering is bad enough as it is.

True, but federal law could specify rules for CDs, then this system might work.

^This, plus I'd like to see some sort of IRV introduced.
Logged
Alexander Hamilton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,167
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: -5.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: September 17, 2009, 01:43:57 AM »

Reasons for electoral college, in my opinion:
1. It's nice to spend a lot of money polling each individual state
2. Living in a safe state, I don't have to do much campaigning on behalf of any candidate for national office
3. I like seeing the states pop up on the map in color every 4 years when the polls close


Logged
defe07
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 961


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: September 17, 2009, 02:50:08 AM »

Can you imagine if this happened? It never would though, since it's nearly impossible.



The red states on that map were won with 50.1% of the vote and the blue states were won with 90% or more of the vote. This would give the winner of the red states a 284-254 win. Take out NJ, NC or GA and you could still get a 269-269 tie and then congress elect the red state winner as President.

Is it just a mere coincidence that all the red states had 13 EV or more and the blue states had less than 13 EV? Tongue
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: September 17, 2009, 03:09:27 AM »

Can you imagine if this happened? It never would though, since it's nearly impossible.



The red states on that map were won with 50.1% of the vote and the blue states were won with 90% or more of the vote. This would give the winner of the red states a 284-254 win. Take out NJ, NC or GA and you could still get a 269-269 tie and then congress elect the red state winner as President.

Is it just a mere coincidence that all the red states had 13 EV or more and the blue states had less than 13 EV? Tongue

That's the whole purpose, to demonstrate how few states and votes you need in total to win the electoral college vote.
Logged
Stranger in a strange land
strangeland
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,131
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: September 17, 2009, 11:50:27 AM »

Can you imagine if this happened? It never would though, since it's nearly impossible.



The red states on that map were won with 50.1% of the vote and the blue states were won with 90% or more of the vote. This would give the winner of the red states a 284-254 win. Take out NJ, NC or GA and you could still get a 269-269 tie and then congress elect the red state winner as President.

Is it just a mere coincidence that all the red states had 13 EV or more and the blue states had less than 13 EV? Tongue

That's the whole purpose, to demonstrate how few states and votes you need in total to win the electoral college vote.


The closest this ever came to actually happening was 1860, when Lincoln won with less than 40% of the vote. Contrary to popular belief, he didn't win because the Democrats split three ways, but actually due to the extreme polarization leading up to the Civil War. Had he been running against a single opponent who got the combined votes of Bell, Breckinridge, and Douglas, he would have lost only two more states, Oregon and California, and still would have won the electoral vote.
Logged
Luis Gonzalez
Rookie
**
Posts: 98
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: September 20, 2009, 11:54:23 PM »

As opposed to election by national popular-vote.

None of the conventional arguments strike me as persuasive. But conventional or unconventional, line 'em up.

There absolutely is.

It forces the candidates to pay attention at States other than coastal States.

It was the States that created the Federal government, and they made sure that every States would have a voice in the selection of the head of the executive.

Without an electoral college, Presidents would be elected by voters from California, Texas,  New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, and maybe North Carolina and New Jersey in every election.
Logged
Alexander Hamilton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,167
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: -5.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: September 20, 2009, 11:57:52 PM »

As opposed to election by national popular-vote.

None of the conventional arguments strike me as persuasive. But conventional or unconventional, line 'em up.

There absolutely is.

It forces the candidates to pay attention at States other than coastal States.

It was the States that created the Federal government, and they made sure that every States would have a voice in the selection of the head of the executive.

Without an electoral college, Presidents would be elected by voters from California, Texas,  New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, and maybe North Carolina and New Jersey in every election.

As opposed to New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, Ohio, Missouri, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Iowa, Florida, and Wisconsin?
Logged
sentinel
sirnick
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,733
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -6.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: October 05, 2009, 11:12:11 AM »

Gives minorities a bigger say, and every reason you can think of not to have a "national" media campaign, which would happen in a system soley based on the popular vote. Who would visit Iowa then?
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: October 05, 2009, 07:08:32 PM »

Gives minorities a bigger say, and every reason you can think of not to have a "national" media campaign, which would happen in a system soley based on the popular vote. Who would visit Iowa then?

Why does Iowa deserve to have people visit?
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8  
« 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 0.071 seconds with 12 queries.