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

[The Union of Free America]

The Electoral College is amazing. Simply amazing. It's a beautiful thing watching a fine and really an amazing institution like the Electoral College doing its job.

[Narland]

I think you may have missed the point. Tyranny is never good, regardless of what form of abuse it takes, whether democracy, oligarchy, or monarchy. I did not bring up the adag about wolves and sheep because it is not part of my point. Besides, wolves dying is taking the analogy past its break down point--the point being to illustrate the tyranny of the majority over the opinions of the minority. .

The points of my post are:
The EC does what it is supposed to do.
The presidency was modeled after a monarch with electors.
We have separation of powers that limit democracy to the Congress.
Democracy is not more or less good than any other form of governance.
When democracy is good it can be very good.
When democracy is bad it is utterly so.
My opinion is that I like the EC how it is.

The EC is a complete failure at what it was intended to be.
That is unarguable.
The historical facts are that the EC was supposed to be electors, true, but they were supposed to make an independent decision on who to vote for when they gathered to choose the president.
This is obviously not how it works, it in fact was broken within the first five elections. Electors pledged themselves to a Presidential candidate almost immediately, which eliminated there purpose as independent voters making informed decisions. Modernly this is even worse because a number of states have laws to enforce the electors pledge. Elector are in addition chosen so as to make their switching vote extremely unlikely.
Thus we have, effectively, a plurality system with some funky rules in place. Not electors choosing a king.

Additionally the EC was chosen for a variety of reasons, the largest being the difficulty in holding a popular vote (especially with the different franchise rules across the many states) and slave states wanting to gain even more power based on their slave population (which count for the electoral college, but wouldn't have counted for a popular vote scheme). The original idea was that the President would be chosen by Congress itself, much like a prime minister, but it was decided that this would give congress to much power, so instead they turned to the people of the US.

A popular vote system, or many of it's derivatives, for president does not make the President some form of direct democracy. It in fact will change nothing about his power, and will change very little about the election, it will simply mean the presidential candidates no longer spend most of their time and money in a limited number of states. But instead have to campaign everywhere.

The Electoral College as it currently stands is so broken a person could win with less than 30% of the vote.

Before you argue it is about protecting small states, it also fails at that. Look at where the candidates spend a majority of there time and money. It is in a handful of states, most of which aren't exactly small.

I do not disagree with most of your analysis. I do disagree that the EC is is utterly broken. It does what it was intended--allowing the States representation in choosing the president. I think that it is the belief that a national popular vote would be better than the EC is what is broken all things considered. We are a federal republic of 50 States (plus territories, trusts etc) not a national unitary state (except for 17 enumerated things). All other powers are reserved to the states or the people respectively. I intend to keep it that way.

[Alvecia]

The EC is a complete failure at what it was intended to be.
That is unarguable.
The historical facts are that the EC was supposed to be electors, true, but they were supposed to make an independent decision on who to vote for when they gathered to choose the president.
This is obviously not how it works, it in fact was broken within the first five elections. Electors pledged themselves to a Presidential candidate almost immediately, which eliminated there purpose as independent voters making informed decisions. Modernly this is even worse because a number of states have laws to enforce the electors pledge. Elector are in addition chosen so as to make their switching vote extremely unlikely.
Thus we have, effectively, a plurality system with some funky rules in place. Not electors choosing a king.

Additionally the EC was chosen for a variety of reasons, the largest being the difficulty in holding a popular vote (especially with the different franchise rules across the many states) and slave states wanting to gain even more power based on their slave population (which count for the electoral college, but wouldn't have counted for a popular vote scheme). The original idea was that the President would be chosen by Congress itself, much like a prime minister, but it was decided that this would give congress to much power, so instead they turned to the people of the US.

A popular vote system, or many of it's derivatives, for president does not make the President some form of direct democracy. It in fact will change nothing about his power, and will change very little about the election, it will simply mean the presidential candidates no longer spend most of their time and money in a limited number of states. But instead have to campaign everywhere.

The Electoral College as it currently stands is so broken a person could win with less than 30% of the vote.

Before you argue it is about protecting small states, it also fails at that. Look at where the candidates spend a majority of there time and money. It is in a handful of states, most of which aren't exactly small.

I do not disagree with most of your analysis. I do disagree that the EC is is utterly broken. It does what it was intended--allowing the States representation in choosing the president. I think that it is the belief that a national popular vote would be better than the EC is what is broken all things considered. We are a republic of 50 States (plus territories, trusts etc) not a nationalist unitary state. I intend to keep it that way.

Perhaps for each state instead of a winner takes all, do it proportionally. That way there's incentive for candidates to spend time in "safe states".
Not perfect, but a good first step I think.

[The Union of Free America]

I think the Electoral College is perfect. State rights and regionalism are as important to the American identity as patriotism and liberty. All I can say in the wake of the recent election is that I'm so proud to be an American and so thankful to God for blessing us.

[Narland]

I do not disagree with most of your analysis. I do disagree that the EC is is utterly broken. It does what it was intended--allowing the States representation in choosing the president. I think that it is the belief that a national popular vote would be better than the EC is what is broken all things considered. We are a republic of 50 States (plus territories, trusts etc) not a nationalist unitary state. I intend to keep it that way.

Perhaps for each state instead of a winner takes all, do it proportionally. That way there's incentive for candidates to spend time in "safe states".
Not perfect, but a good first step I think.

I have no problem with each State awarding electors according to popular vote by district as Nebraska or Maine now does. I would have liked for electors to actually meet as a college to deliberate on the President, but it never came about that way. **snip** I removed my off topic remarks..

[Genivaria]

I think the Electoral College is perfect. State rights and regionalism are as important to the American identity as patriotism and liberty. All I can say in the wake of the recent election is that I'm so proud to be an American and so thankful to God for blessing us.

And why are 'state's rights' a good thing exactly?

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

I think the Electoral College is perfect.

Wrong.

It is stupid thing that even Trump said that it needs to get rid of.

It has produced non representative presidents that a minority voted in mutiple times.

[Grand Britannia]

I think the Electoral College is perfect.

Wrong.

It is stupid thing that even Trump said that it needs to get rid of.

It has produced non representative presidents that a minority voted in.

Even without it there's been plenty of other elections where no one gets a majority.

[Spirit of Hope]

The EC is a complete failure at what it was intended to be.
That is unarguable.
The historical facts are that the EC was supposed to be electors, true, but they were supposed to make an independent decision on who to vote for when they gathered to choose the president.
This is obviously not how it works, it in fact was broken within the first five elections. Electors pledged themselves to a Presidential candidate almost immediately, which eliminated there purpose as independent voters making informed decisions. Modernly this is even worse because a number of states have laws to enforce the electors pledge. Elector are in addition chosen so as to make their switching vote extremely unlikely.
Thus we have, effectively, a plurality system with some funky rules in place. Not electors choosing a king.

Additionally the EC was chosen for a variety of reasons, the largest being the difficulty in holding a popular vote (especially with the different franchise rules across the many states) and slave states wanting to gain even more power based on their slave population (which count for the electoral college, but wouldn't have counted for a popular vote scheme). The original idea was that the President would be chosen by Congress itself, much like a prime minister, but it was decided that this would give congress to much power, so instead they turned to the people of the US.

A popular vote system, or many of it's derivatives, for president does not make the President some form of direct democracy. It in fact will change nothing about his power, and will change very little about the election, it will simply mean the presidential candidates no longer spend most of their time and money in a limited number of states. But instead have to campaign everywhere.

The Electoral College as it currently stands is so broken a person could win with less than 30% of the vote.

Before you argue it is about protecting small states, it also fails at that. Look at where the candidates spend a majority of there time and money. It is in a handful of states, most of which aren't exactly small.

I do not disagree with most of your analysis. I do disagree that the EC is is utterly broken. It does what it was intended--allowing the States representation in choosing the president. I think that it is the belief that a national popular vote would be better than the EC is what is broken all things considered. We are a federal republic of 50 States (plus territories, trusts etc) not a national unitary state (except for 17 enumerated things). All other powers are reserved to the states or the people respectively. I intend to keep it that way.

The EC in no way represents the states. It is effectively a plurality vote system that gives the residents of certain states a bigger voice. It also effectively disenfranchises 44 of the states.

In this election 6 states got more than 1/3 of the candidates visits. New Hampshire, Iowa, Florida, Ohio, South Carolina, Pennsylvanian.

Yes we are a federal republic, which is why we have Governors, Senators, and Representatives who are all pulled from the state to represent them.

Saying that the states not the people should choose the president is a valid position, though one I disagree with, but the EC does not do this.

[ROM]

Before you argue it is about protecting small states, it also fails at that. Look at where the candidates spend a majority of there time and money. It is in a handful of states, most of which aren't exactly small.

How would changing it to a popular vote change that? In fact, it would make that even worse.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Wrong.

It is stupid thing that even Trump said that it needs to get rid of.

It has produced non representative presidents that a minority voted in.

Even without it there's been plenty of other elections where no one gets a majority.

That makes the electoral college better, how? Even with FPTP, the candidate with the most votes would have still won.
That would be more representative than a system where a second place winner gets a first place trophy.

[Spirit of Hope]

Before you argue it is about protecting small states, it also fails at that. Look at where the candidates spend a majority of there time and money. It is in a handful of states, most of which aren't exactly small.

How would changing it to a popular vote change that? In fact, it would make that even worse.

Nope. Even the largest states represent only a fraction of the population of the United States. To give you an idea the top 10 urban areas in the US represent less than a third it's population. And these urban areas aren't a city but large sprawling areas that cross state boundaries (the New York urban area hits 4 states iirc).

Under the best system, imo, instant run off a candidate needs to get 50% of the vote +1 to win. To do that the candidate would obviously need to campaign basically everywhere. After all hitting the 10 ten urban areas only gets you 1/3rd of the vote or so. And that is if everyone there votes for you.

Even if the candidate only campaigns in the top ten urban areas (thus almost ensuring they lose), that is still better than the current system where they visit 6 states near exclusively.

[The Kerguelen Archipelago]

Think about this:

Number of Electors in Wyoming: 3
Population of Wyoming: .5826 million

3/.5826=5.15
Wyoming gets 5.15 electors per million people.

Number of Electors in California: 55
Population of California: 38.8 million
55/38.8=1.42
California gets 1.42 electors per million people

Ratio of electors per million between Wyoming and California: 5.15/1.42=3.63
You know a system is broken when a vote in Wyoming counts 3.63 times as much as a vote in California. And that is EXCLUDING thinking bout swing states and safe states.

[The Union of Free America]

Wrong.

It is stupid thing that even Trump said that it needs to get rid of.

It has produced non representative presidents that a minority voted in.

Even without it there's been plenty of other elections where no one gets a majority.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Even without it there's been plenty of other elections where no one gets a majority.

That still proves nothing. It doesn't make the Electoral College "Perfect".

Sense you didn't read my reply to Grand Britannia:

That makes the electoral college better, how? Even with FPTP, the candidate with the most votes would have still won.
That would be more representative than a system where a second place winner gets a first place trophy.

[Acheulian]

Before you argue it is about protecting small states, it also fails at that. Look at where the candidates spend a majority of there time and money. It is in a handful of states, most of which aren't exactly small.

Yet under the electoral college a small state like South Dakota has the right to veto the choice of a much bigger state like California if California's choice goes against the interests of the people of South Dakota.

Under the system you propose, the populist system, California can cram its own ethics, its own policies and its decisions down South Dakota's throat regardless of whether it it is good for South Dakota or even fits with South Dakota values. That is not a fair system because it does not protect South Dakota in any way whatever.

If Californians want to go off and make up their own presidency run by mob rule they are free to do so and we will gladly allow them to do so, minus Central and Northern California which were never part of Mexico to begin to with. Independent California would consist entirely of LA County, San Bernardino County, and southward to Mexico.

(For its part, Mexico has repeatedly said it will not recognize an independent California. So has the European Union and China.)

[Galloism]

Before you argue it is about protecting small states, it also fails at that. Look at where the candidates spend a majority of there time and money. It is in a handful of states, most of which aren't exactly small.

Yet under the electoral college a small state like South Dakota has the right to veto the choice of a much bigger state like California if California's choice goes against the interests of the people of South Dakota.

Under the system you propose, the populist system, California can cram its own ethics, its own policies and its decisions down South Dakota's throat regardless of whether it it is good for South Dakota or even fits with South Dakota values. That is not a fair system because it does not protect South Dakota in any way whatever.

If Californians want to go off and make up their own presidency run by mob rule they are free to do so and we will gladly allow them to do so, minus Central and Northern California which were never part of Mexico to begin to with. Independent California would consist entirely of LA County, San Bernardino County, and southward to Mexico.

(For its part, Mexico has repeatedly said it will not recognize an independent California. So has the European Union and China.)

Under the system you support, when selecting president, South Dakota can cram its agenda down california's throat and California has no right to veto it, even though there are far far more people in California being harmed than the people in South Dakota being helped.

[San Lumen]

There should be strict popular vote. Its completely unfair and undemocratic that someone who gets over a million more votes than their opponent doesn't win the election. You would not support a senator or governor getting elected that way and it should not be done for President. If that means that New York, Texas and California decide the election every time so be it. The Liberals in Canada won their election in 2015 by sweeping urban areas. They didn't do well in rural areas. Should Toronto's votes be made to count less than someone in rural Ontario?

[The Romulan Republic]

There should be strict popular vote. Its completely unfair and undemocratic that someone who gets over a million more votes than their opponent doesn't win the election. You would not support a senator or governor getting elected that way and it should not be done for President. If that means that New York, Texas and California decide the election every time so be it. The Liberals in Canada won their election in 2015 by sweeping urban areas. They didn't do well in rural areas. Should Toronto's votes be made to count less than someone in rural Ontario?

The thing is, New York, Texas, and California aren't really homogenous blocks. They always go Democrat (or Republican, in Texas's case) because that's how most of the people in the state vote, and the EC is winner take all. But their are people who vote differently in those states, millions of them, and if their was no EC, just a nationwide popular vote, those peoples' votes would count toward the total for their party. A Democrat wouldn't have to win Texas, but they would have to not completely bomb their. Ditto a Republican in California or New York.

A nationwide popular vote would make us all equal (provided we finally extend full voting rights to territories and stop the voter suppression bullshit), and force candidates and parties to campaign in every state, for every vote.

[Spirit of Hope]

Before you argue it is about protecting small states, it also fails at that. Look at where the candidates spend a majority of there time and money. It is in a handful of states, most of which aren't exactly small.

Yet under the electoral college a small state like South Dakota has the right to veto the choice of a much bigger state like California if California's choice goes against the interests of the people of South Dakota.

Under the system you propose, the populist system, California can cram its own ethics, its own policies and its decisions down South Dakota's throat regardless of whether it it is good for South Dakota or even fits with South Dakota values. That is not a fair system because it does not protect South Dakota in any way whatever.

That is basically all wrong.

First the Electoral College does not give small states a veto. It simply gives the votes of its citizens more power, the largest edge being by less than 4-1.

This additional voting power gets them nothing however because of the winner takes all nature of the electoral college. The only small state anyone cares about because of this is New Hampshire.

Under a instant run off system, like the one I have repeatedly proposed, a candidate would need more than 50% of the vote to win. California represents a little over 10% of the population. So even if they all voted together, never going to happen, they would not be able to force there beliefs on anyone.

Additionally even if we went to an instant run off popular vote system that wouldn't allow the majority to do much. Why? Because we aren't getting rid of the Senate, House of Representatives, or Supreme Court. All of which balance the power of the President.

South Dakota is still protected, California and New York can't team up to overpower everyone else, losses can't become winners, the interests of more states must be heard (rather than just the interests of 5-6 swing states), and the two party system is slightly weakened.

If Californians want to go off and make up their own presidency run by mob rule they are free to do so and we will gladly allow them to do so, minus Central and Northern California which were never part of Mexico to begin to with. Independent California would consist entirely of LA County, San Bernardino County, and southward to Mexico.

(For its part, Mexico has repeatedly said it will not recognize an independent California. So has the European Union and China.)

Hello straw man.

Where did I call for "mobe rule"? No where, I want to keep all of the other systems that balance and protect.

Where did I call for California to leave the Union? No where, it would be stupid for them to even try.

[San Lumen]

There should be strict popular vote. Its completely unfair and undemocratic that someone who gets over a million more votes than their opponent doesn't win the election. You would not support a senator or governor getting elected that way and it should not be done for President. If that means that New York, Texas and California decide the election every time so be it. The Liberals in Canada won their election in 2015 by sweeping urban areas. They didn't do well in rural areas. Should Toronto's votes be made to count less than someone in rural Ontario?

The thing is, New York, Texas, and California aren't really homogenous blocks. They always go Democrat (or Republican, in Texas's case) because that's how most of the people in the state vote, and the EC is winner take all. But their are people who vote differently in those states, millions of them, and if their was no EC, just a nationwide popular vote, those peoples' votes would count toward the total for their party. A Democrat wouldn't have to win Texas, but they would have to not completely bomb their. Ditto a Republican in California or New York.

A nationwide popular vote would make us all equal (provided we finally extend full voting rights to territories and stop the voter suppression bullshit), and force candidates and parties to campaign in every state, for every vote.

I agree completely. The electoral college is antiquated and should be gotten rid of.

[Forsher]

Yes. No. Kind of?

If you went purely Popular Vote, you'd basically be weighing the system heavily in favour of the most heavily populated states which, also tend to be the most Blue like California, and New York.

Why? Pretend I'm an idiot and haven't written several explanations for why this wouldn't be the case and explain how it is the case.

I do disagree that the EC is is utterly broken. It does what it was intended--allowing the States representation in choosing the president.

That doesn't mean that intention is right. For example, consider your reasoning below:

I think that it is the belief that a national popular vote would be better than the EC is what is broken all things considered. We are a federal republic of 50 States (plus territories, trusts etc) not a national unitary state (except for 17 enumerated things).

As has been noted, other parts of the federal government preserve the influence of the states. Why should the states get all the say in the running of your country (er, the USA)? That's the proposition you actually need to defend, not that the federal character of the US means that the states need representation.

All other powers are reserved to the states or the people respectively. I intend to keep it that way.

I don't think this would change with the end of the College.

Before you argue it is about protecting small states, it also fails at that. Look at where the candidates spend a majority of there time and money. It is in a handful of states, most of which aren't exactly small.

How would changing it to a popular vote change that? In fact, it would make that even worse.

How? How? How?

People keep saying this, no-one offers any explanations except ones which have the opposite conclusion.

In this election 6 states got more than 1/3 of the candidates visits. New Hampshire, Iowa, Florida, Ohio, South Carolina, Pennsylvanian.

The more damning statistic is this:

"Two-thirds (273 out of 399) of campaign events in the 2016 election were held in only six states (Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia and Michigan)."

Nope. Even the largest states represent only a fraction of the population of the United States. To give you an idea the top 10 urban areas in the US represent less than a third it's population. And these urban areas aren't a city but large sprawling areas that cross state boundaries (the New York urban area hits 4 states iirc).

Based on this article, it's 24% (less than a quarter) and you're right, many of them do cross multiple state lines.

To get to a third, you'd need the top 20 or 21 or so.

As I said before, the concern with a popular vote is not that candidates spend all their time in the most populated areas but that they run out of money trying to be everywhere.

[Salandriagado]

I do not disagree with most of your analysis. I do disagree that the EC is is utterly broken. It does what it was intended--allowing the States representation in choosing the president. I think that it is the belief that a national popular vote would be better than the EC is what is broken all things considered. We are a republic of 50 States (plus territories, trusts etc) not a nationalist unitary state. I intend to keep it that way.

Perhaps for each state instead of a winner takes all, do it proportionally. That way there's incentive for candidates to spend time in "safe states".
Not perfect, but a good first step I think.

Yeah, that would be a good start.

Wrong.

It is stupid thing that even Trump said that it needs to get rid of.

It has produced non representative presidents that a minority voted in.

Even without it there's been plenty of other elections where no one gets a majority.

Yup. But none without the winner having at least a plurality. (Although, you can fix that too, by using STV or similar).

[WhatsamattaU]

We are the "United States", not the "United Populace".

Consider that more "States" voted for President-Elect Trump than Secretary Clinton.

As for removing the Electoral College, it would take either a Constitutional Amendment or a Constitutional Convention. Good luck with that, hah!

Or we split California into 137 separate states, and CA picks every president forever.

Ah, but those 137 separate communities WON'T BE CALIFORNIA ANYMORE.
Secondly, do you think all those little governments are automatically all going to vote for one candidate?
Thirdly, do you think that the current, or future, government of California is going to allow it's power and money to be taken away by 137 little governments?

You'd be better off with an Amendment to the Constitution, or a Constitutional Convention.

[Socialist Nordia]

Instant runoff voting is the best way to go, imo, but even FPTP would be better than the electoral college. That thing is an abomination to democratic principles. Living in a tiny farm state shouldn't automatically give you three and a half votes.