Should the US switch to popular vote vs. electoral college?

[The Romulan Republic]

Specifically, its a relic of a time when the US was more a collection of separate states than a unified nation, and was meant to give certain states disproportionate influence over others.

Judging by some people's saltiness over the recent election, and political discourse in general, the US is still very much a collection of separate states.

No.

You get the states' rights nuts, but I doubt most Americans put their state first and America second in their minds.

The current divisions are more cultural/ideological than along state lines, and most of the secession talk seems to be just people wanting to leave because they lost the election (this was the case in 2008 too). Though really, in the end, that's all it was for the Confederates. Sore losers who didn't respect democracy over their paranoia about losing "their" slaves.

[Venerable Bede]

The EC is meant to represent the people of various states, not so much the people as a monolithic nation.

It's doing a shit job of that, then, due to FPTP. All the people who voted Republican in California and those who voted Democrat in Wyoming don't matter under the EC and that's simply not remotely fair.

But with a popular election, you'd also have all the people who voted for the losing party not mattering. And in fact rural and low population density votes might be altogether irrelevant, and then you're also left with people who get totally marginalized. It's just how you slice it.

[Venerable Bede]

The EC is meant to represent the people of various states, not so much the people as a monolithic nation.

Specifically, its a relic of a time when the US was more a collection of separate states than a unified nation, and was meant to give certain states disproportionate influence over others.

More meant to prevent certain states from being drowned out in terms of influence.

[Farnhamia]

It's doing a shit job of that, then, due to FPTP. All the people who voted Republican in California and those who voted Democrat in Wyoming don't matter under the EC and that's simply not remotely fair.

Indeed.

The irony is that while advocates of the EC talk about how it ensures that the minority gets counted, in fact, a nationwide popular vote would actually ensure that every vote in every state mattered, and that politicians would have to work for every vote in every state.

The EC puts a handful of states on a pedestal, but it renders the votes of the minority in all the other states virtually worthless towards the final result.

No, all you need are good majorities in California, New York, Illinois, Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and a handful of others like New Jersey and Virginia, and you could walk away with a FPTP national popular election.

[The Romulan Republic]

Indeed.

The irony is that while advocates of the EC talk about how it ensures that the minority gets counted, in fact, a nationwide popular vote would actually ensure that every vote in every state mattered, and that politicians would have to work for every vote in every state.

The EC puts a handful of states on a pedestal, but it renders the votes of the minority in all the other states virtually worthless towards the final result.

No, all you need are good majorities in California, New York, Illinois, Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and a handful of others like New Jersey and Virginia, and you could walk away with a FPTP national popular election.

And what exactly are the odds of a candidate getting such majorities in California and New York as well as Texas? And if a candidate did pull that off, wouldn't they almost certainly have swept the EC by even higher margins?

Again, a candidate may get a majority in some really big states, but they aren't likely to completely sweep all the big states. Which means they'll also have to compete for votes in smaller states, even states where they don't have the majority perhaps, to push them over the top. Because in a popular vote system, all the matters is who gets the most votes, not what part of the country you get them from, and every vote adds up.

But EC advocates seem frustratingly unable to grasp this, because they're still stuck thinking in terms of "winning states". The irony being that "winning states" only matters so much because of the EC and its state by state, winner take all approach.

[Farnhamia]

No, all you need are good majorities in California, New York, Illinois, Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and a handful of others like New Jersey and Virginia, and you could walk away with a FPTP national popular election.

And what exactly are the odds of a candidate getting such majorities in California and New York as well as Texas? And if a candidate did pull that off, wouldn't they almost certainly have swept the EC by even higher margins?

Again, a candidate may get a majority in some really big states, but they aren't likely to completely sweep all the big states. Which means they'll also have to compete for votes in smaller states, even states where they don't have the majority perhaps, to push them over the top. Because in a popular vote system, all the matters is who gets the most votes, not what part of the country you get them from, and every vote adds up.

But EC advocates seem frustratingly unable to grasp this, because they're still stuck thinking in terms of "winning states". The irony being that "winning states" only matters so much because of the EC and its state by state, winner take all approach.

Okay, Texas is the "one that is different" in that list but you see my point. To do away with "winning states" you would have to do away with the States and that's a whole 'nuther glacial kettle lake full of really cold fish (as we used to say when I was a kid).

[Great Nepal]

Indeed.

The irony is that while advocates of the EC talk about how it ensures that the minority gets counted, in fact, a nationwide popular vote would actually ensure that every vote in every state mattered, and that politicians would have to work for every vote in every state.

The EC puts a handful of states on a pedestal, but it renders the votes of the minority in all the other states virtually worthless towards the final result.

No, all you need are good majorities in California, New York, Illinois, Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and a handful of others like New Jersey and Virginia, and you could walk away with a FPTP national popular election.

Under electoral college candidate can win with 50%+1 in California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey, Virginia regardless of turnout.
Under PV candidate must win by atleast 80% in California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, Georgia, New Jersey, Virginia, Washington, Massachusetts, and Indiana with same turnout as 2012.
That is, candidate must win all the states they'd need to under Electoral college plus states of Washington, Massachusetts, and Indiana; and they'd need genuine, landslide level wins in all of those states.

[Farnhamia]

No, all you need are good majorities in California, New York, Illinois, Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and a handful of others like New Jersey and Virginia, and you could walk away with a FPTP national popular election.

Under electoral college candidate can win with 50%+1 in California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey, Virginia regardless of turnout.
Under PV candidate must win by atleast 80% in California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, Georgia, New Jersey, Virginia, Washington, Massachusetts, and Indiana with same turnout as 2012.
That is, candidate must win all the states they'd need to under Electoral college plus states of Washington, Massachusetts, and Indiana.

And that's better because three extra states are needed? Or a few more because getting 80% is a stretch. All I'm saying is, the EC may not be perfect but a national popular vote isn't the cure-all solution. And no, I don't know what the solution should be.

[Galloism]

Under electoral college candidate can win with 50%+1 in California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey, Virginia regardless of turnout.
Under PV candidate must win by atleast 80% in California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, Georgia, New Jersey, Virginia, Washington, Massachusetts, and Indiana with same turnout as 2012.
That is, candidate must win all the states they'd need to under Electoral college plus states of Washington, Massachusetts, and Indiana.

And that's better because three extra states are needed? Or a few more because getting 80% is a stretch. All I'm saying is, the EC may not be perfect but a national popular vote isn't the cure-all solution. And no, I don't know what the solution should be.

Remember when Robert Livingston tried to make me king in a limited monarchy because of my previous experience?

Doesn't seem so stupid now, does it?

[The Romulan Republic]

And what exactly are the odds of a candidate getting such majorities in California and New York as well as Texas? And if a candidate did pull that off, wouldn't they almost certainly have swept the EC by even higher margins?

Again, a candidate may get a majority in some really big states, but they aren't likely to completely sweep all the big states. Which means they'll also have to compete for votes in smaller states, even states where they don't have the majority perhaps, to push them over the top. Because in a popular vote system, all the matters is who gets the most votes, not what part of the country you get them from, and every vote adds up.

But EC advocates seem frustratingly unable to grasp this, because they're still stuck thinking in terms of "winning states". The irony being that "winning states" only matters so much because of the EC and its state by state, winner take all approach.

Okay, Texas is the "one that is different" in that list but you see my point. To do away with "winning states" you would have to do away with the States and that's a whole 'nuther glacial kettle lake full of really cold fish (as we used to say when I was a kid).

That's absolutely ridiculous. You don't have to "do away with states" to stop treating their individual voters as homogenous blocks in national elections.

That EC supporters seem so reliant on fear-mongering and straw men might be an indication that their argument isn't very strong.

Mind you, I wouldn't shed a tear if we did do away with states, but that's a whole separate discussion from this one.

[Valrifell]

Which elections are we referring to?

To my knowledge, there were only really ever two major candidates fielded with the name recognition and sufficient backing required to carry an electoral vote. Exception (as far as I know) being 1860.

1824: four candidates, all prominent men (granted from the same party)
1832: four candidates, the two "minor party ones" each carried a state & received electoral votes
1836: five candidates, all of whom carried at least one state & received electoral votes (okay, four from the Whigs, but still ...)

We must skip 1844, which gave us that rousing slogan, "Hurray, Hurray, the Country's Risin' – Vote for Clay and Frelinghuysen!"

1848: three candidates, though only Taylor and Cass received electoral votes
1856: three candidates, each of whom carried a state and received electoral votes.

And really, there were always multiple candidates, just as there are now. They just don't do as well, but they're there.

Oh, yeah, they've always been there but never mattered. My thought as to why relates back to the Electoral College. I also should clarify that I meant more dominant candidates rather than those that usually run. People who can carry loads of states without being from the same party. Similar to 1824 (went to the House who went with the "Corrupt Bargain") or 1860 (Lincoln didn't win the popular vote and wasn't anywhere close to doing so). Also, had the Whigs managed to get some miracle candidate in 1836 and all of the votes and states that went to the separate candidates went to one, it would've been another case of the EC going against the popular vote.

[Salandriagado]

And what exactly are the odds of a candidate getting such majorities in California and New York as well as Texas? And if a candidate did pull that off, wouldn't they almost certainly have swept the EC by even higher margins?

Again, a candidate may get a majority in some really big states, but they aren't likely to completely sweep all the big states. Which means they'll also have to compete for votes in smaller states, even states where they don't have the majority perhaps, to push them over the top. Because in a popular vote system, all the matters is who gets the most votes, not what part of the country you get them from, and every vote adds up.

But EC advocates seem frustratingly unable to grasp this, because they're still stuck thinking in terms of "winning states". The irony being that "winning states" only matters so much because of the EC and its state by state, winner take all approach.

Okay, Texas is the "one that is different" in that list but you see my point. To do away with "winning states" you would have to do away with the States and that's a whole 'nuther glacial kettle lake full of really cold fish (as we used to say when I was a kid).

No you don't. Adding all of the votes up before distributing EVs in no way invalidates the state governments. Obviously.

[Farnhamia]

Okay, Texas is the "one that is different" in that list but you see my point. To do away with "winning states" you would have to do away with the States and that's a whole 'nuther glacial kettle lake full of really cold fish (as we used to say when I was a kid).

No you don't. Adding all of the votes up before distributing EVs in no way invalidates the state governments. Obviously.

Why are distributing EVs under a national popular election?

[Great Nepal]

Under electoral college candidate can win with 50%+1 in California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey, Virginia regardless of turnout.
Under PV candidate must win by atleast 80% in California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, Georgia, New Jersey, Virginia, Washington, Massachusetts, and Indiana with same turnout as 2012.
That is, candidate must win all the states they'd need to under Electoral college plus states of Washington, Massachusetts, and Indiana.

And that's better because three extra states are needed? Or a few more because getting 80% is a stretch. All I'm saying is, the EC may not be perfect but a national popular vote isn't the cure-all solution. And no, I don't know what the solution should be.

It doesn't need to be perfect, merely comparatively better than current system... which it mathematically is.
I don't think there's a system which allows you to represent both arbitrarily drawn, fixed lines and people living there. We could redraw the state lines every 4 years so there's always equal population in each state but that I think is cheating.

[Galloism]

Mind you, I wouldn't shed a tear if we did do away with states, but that's a whole separate discussion from this one.

Actually, that's probably a bad idea. A number of our really good federal ideas were tried, and worked, at the state level first.

"Laboratories of democracy", we called them.

Of course, we could stand to actually pay attention to the results more.

[Galloism]

And that's better because three extra states are needed? Or a few more because getting 80% is a stretch. All I'm saying is, the EC may not be perfect but a national popular vote isn't the cure-all solution. And no, I don't know what the solution should be.

It doesn't need to be perfect, merely comparatively better than current system... which it mathematically is.
I don't think there's a system which allows you to represent both arbitrarily drawn, fixed lines and people living there. We could redraw the state lines every 4 years so there's always equal population in each state but that I think is cheating.

Not to mention it would make collecting and remitting taxes complete and utter hell.

[Valrifell]

And that's better because three extra states are needed? Or a few more because getting 80% is a stretch. All I'm saying is, the EC may not be perfect but a national popular vote isn't the cure-all solution. And no, I don't know what the solution should be.

It doesn't need to be perfect, merely comparatively better than current system... which it mathematically is.
I don't think there's a system which allows you to represent both arbitrarily drawn, fixed lines and people living there. We could redraw the state lines every 4 years so there's always equal population in each state but that I think is cheating.

Would defeat the purpose of having states as well.

[The Romulan Republic]

Mind you, I wouldn't shed a tear if we did do away with states, but that's a whole separate discussion from this one.

Actually, that's probably a bad idea. A number of our really good federal ideas were tried, and worked, at the state level first.

"Laboratories of democracy", we called them.

Of course, we could stand to actually pay attention to the results more.

Weighed against that is that the notion of "states' rights" has been used to obstruct civil rights reforms throughout American history, and was the pretext for a civil war that killed over 600,000 Americans in the name of racial slavery.

I do think their are some issues best handled at the local level, but the state lines currently seem somewhat arbitrary to me. I'm of the opinion that either we're a single country, or we're not, and I'd much prefer that we are one.

[Galloism]

Actually, that's probably a bad idea. A number of our really good federal ideas were tried, and worked, at the state level first.

"Laboratories of democracy", we called them.

Of course, we could stand to actually pay attention to the results more.

Weighed against that is that the notion of "states' rights" has been used to obstruct civil rights reforms throughout American history, and was the pretext for a civil war that killed over 600,000 Americans in the name of racial slavery.

In fairness, the whole civil war thing was quite some time ago.

That being said, "states rights" as a concept needs to go. States don't have rights. They have powers.

[Valrifell]

Actually, that's probably a bad idea. A number of our really good federal ideas were tried, and worked, at the state level first.

"Laboratories of democracy", we called them.

Of course, we could stand to actually pay attention to the results more.

Weighed against that is that the notion of "states' rights" has been used to obstruct civil rights reforms throughout American history, and was the pretext for a civil war that killed over 600,000 Americans in the name of racial slavery.

States were also the first places were women got the right to vote in this country.

[Farnhamia]

And that's better because three extra states are needed? Or a few more because getting 80% is a stretch. All I'm saying is, the EC may not be perfect but a national popular vote isn't the cure-all solution. And no, I don't know what the solution should be.

Remember when Robert Livingston tried to make me king in a limited monarchy because of my previous experience?

Doesn't seem so stupid now, does it?

No, well ... who knew? I seem to recall you writing to me that Mrs. Livingston was quite fond of you (I didn't visit the New World until the late 1870s, remember).

[The Romulan Republic]

Weighed against that is that the notion of "states' rights" has been used to obstruct civil rights reforms throughout American history, and was the pretext for a civil war that killed over 600,000 Americans in the name of racial slavery.

States were also the first places were women got the right to vote in this country.

Oh, they've done some good, certainly. Leading the way on gay rights and marijuana legalization too. And, hell, on Electoral College reform.

But its not all a rosy picture either, by any means.

[Salandriagado]

No you don't. Adding all of the votes up before distributing EVs in no way invalidates the state governments. Obviously.

Why are distributing EVs under a national popular election?

Sorry, but I actually have no idea what the question is.

[Farnhamia]

Why are distributing EVs under a national popular election?

Sorry, but I actually have no idea what the question is.

Me, neither. It's almost five, I think I'll have a drink.

[Salandriagado]

Sorry, but I actually have no idea what the question is.

Me, neither. It's almost five, I think I'll have a drink.

Now that's the best idea I've heard all day.