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

[Valrifell]

This argument I can see because you do need a majority of the population of several states to get into the White House.

It's still terribly undemocratic from a national stage, but it makes some kind of sense to me.

The national stage doesn't really matter, as it is, and I'm perfectly fine with that.

For the figure head of a Federal government, there's many better ways to make sure the wills of the peoples of the various states are better represented. The Electoral College as it stands (in FPTP) is an awful indicator of national wants or needs, even on a state-by-state basis.

[Zelent]

Why popular vote? I say we should introduce a parliamentary or proportional system.

[Jamzmania]

The national stage doesn't really matter, as it is, and I'm perfectly fine with that.

For the figure head of a Federal government, there's many better ways to make sure the wills of the peoples of the various states are better represented. The Electoral College as it stands (in FPTP) is an awful indicator of national wants or needs, even on a state-by-state basis.

I would like to see run off elections, at least.

[Jamzmania]

Why popular vote? I say we should introduce a parliamentary or proportional system.

We don't want to stain our federation with your dirty foreign systems.

[Salandriagado]

You don't need a majority of states to win tho.

If it was just a matter of needing a majority of states to win, every state would have the same vote.

I suppose I should really say that it is a compromise between states and population, but that states, I think, are the primary consideration.

In fact, it's actually worse for the states than straight popular vote would be. Getting to 270 EVs requires only 11 states at 50%+1. Winning NPV at that same percentage requires winning far more states than that.

[Great Nepal]

If it was just a matter of needing a majority of states to win, every state would have the same vote.

I suppose I should really say that it is a compromise between states and population, but that states, I think, are the primary consideration.

In fact, it's actually worse for the states than straight popular vote would be. Getting to 270 EVs requires only 11 states at 50%+1. Winning NPV at that same percentage requires winning far more states than that.

Minimum you can get away with sort of realistically is 15 states with 80% support at 60% turnout each.

[Salandriagado]

Well, as stated before, the compromise is shit because you don't need either to win.

You don't technically need either to win, but it's highly unlikely that you will get neither.

I think it has been mentioned before that Trump's election now makes a 7% rate of someone being elected without the majority of the popular vote.

11%. Which is ridiculously high. Additionally, both 1960 and 1976 had the candidate losing the majority of states win the election.

[Kannabyss]

Don't fix something that ain't broke.

It is broken,Clinton received more votes than Trump yet lost the election. That system seems pretty undemocratic to me.

Agreed! The people spoke, and now we're supposed to just accept that they know better and we should let them defend us from our own decisions. This is exactly why we are a republic, NOT a democracy.

[Salandriagado]

It is broken,Clinton received more votes than Trump yet lost the election. That system seems pretty undemocratic to me.

Agreed! The people spoke, and now we're supposed to just accept that they know better and we should let them defend us from our own decisions. This is exactly why we are a republic, NOT a democracy.

The distinction there is whether you make decisions directly or elect officials. That is: it's completely irrelevant to the discussion.

[Kannabyss]

Agreed! The people spoke, and now we're supposed to just accept that they know better and we should let them defend us from our own decisions. This is exactly why we are a republic, NOT a democracy.

The distinction there is whether you make decisions directly or elect officials. That is: it's completely irrelevant to the discussion.

No, in a republic you elect officials to govern for you. In a democracy, the people govern directly. That's a pretty relevant distinction. It's foolish that a nation would be even tout the label "democratic" if they aren't practicing it.

[Salandriagado]

The distinction there is whether you make decisions directly or elect officials. That is: it's completely irrelevant to the discussion.

No, in a republic you elect officials to govern for you. In a democracy, the people govern directly. That's a pretty relevant distinction. It's foolish that a nation would be even tout the label "democratic" if they aren't practicing it.

Now read my post again, and try actually responding to it.

[Kannabyss]

No, in a republic you elect officials to govern for you. In a democracy, the people govern directly. That's a pretty relevant distinction. It's foolish that a nation would be even tout the label "democratic" if they aren't practicing it.

Now read my post again, and try actually responding to it.

Do you have anything better to do?

[Tahar Joblis]

If it was just a matter of needing a majority of states to win, every state would have the same vote.

I suppose I should really say that it is a compromise between states and population, but that states, I think, are the primary consideration.

In fact, it's actually worse for the states than straight popular vote would be. Getting to 270 EVs requires only 11 states at 50%+1. Winning NPV at that same percentage requires winning far more states than that.

That presumes a 2-candidate election. Leaving aside the spectacle of elections that get thrown to the House (in which case you could theoretically see a candidate with a token electoral vote from Maine or Nebraska be elected) any race with 3-4 major candidates, like 1860, has the potential go absolutely haywire.

The system is stacked against having 3-4 major candidates in the first place, of course, but the system is very poorly designed to handle those sorts of situations when they arise.

[AiliailiA]

You don't need a majority of states to win tho.

If it was just a matter of needing a majority of states to win, every state would have the same vote.

I suppose I should really say that it is a compromise between states and population, but that states, I think, are the primary consideration.

Each state gets a bonus 2 Electors, in addition to what they're entitled to by number of US House districts. While the number of districts corresponds as closely as possible to population of each state.

So that's 100 "state votes" and 435 "population votes" ... plus 3 for DC.

18.6% by state, and 80.9% by population. If that's a compromise between states and population, population not states are the primary consideration.

[Salandriagado]

In fact, it's actually worse for the states than straight popular vote would be. Getting to 270 EVs requires only 11 states at 50%+1. Winning NPV at that same percentage requires winning far more states than that.

That presumes a 2-candidate election. Leaving aside the spectacle of elections that get thrown to the House (in which case you could theoretically see a candidate with a token electoral vote from Maine or Nebraska be elected) any race with 3-4 major candidates, like 1860, has the potential go absolutely haywire.

The system is stacked against having 3-4 major candidates in the first place, of course, but the system is very poorly designed to handle those sorts of situations when they arise.

Oh absolutely, once you allow more than two candidates, everything goes to hell (I gave a 22-vote win example earlier).

[Genivaria]

Why popular vote? I say we should introduce a parliamentary or proportional system.

We don't want to stain our federation with your dirty foreign systems.

Pssst the American government was inspired partly by the British and partly by the Roman Republic.
Oh and the Iroquois Confederacy.

[Corvus Metallum]

But it doesn't protect states in terms of size. One Wyomians vote is five times more valuable than a Californians and that doesn't really matter because those states are safe states. The electoral college system forces candidates to only focus on around 3-9 states.

That harkens back to a fundamental issue of the Founders when creating the US Government; the question of whether states should have equal or proportional representation. The Electoral College is, in theory, a combination of those (since all states have two votes for their Senators and at least one vote for a representative). So really, the Electoral College's flaws are linked to the Senate thanks to its policy of equal representation for states.

Actually, the faults in the Electoral College stem more from the fact that Congress limited the growth of the House of Representatives to it's current amount (435) back in 1929 with the Permanent Apportionment Act. Rather than have the House grow with the population like it had up until that point, we're now stuck jockeying around the current amount of representatives every time we have a census. Ideally, if we were to solve this from a federal perspective and without a constitutional amendment, I would strike out the PAA and add another 50 or 100 representatives (or whatever the math would come out to be to make it fair) to the House (more reps = less people represented by each = more proportional representation of the population; in theory, anyways). While this would solve a couple other issues, the one most relevant to this discussion would be that it would, in part, alleviate the present ills of the Electoral College.

That being said, I would much rather see it to where the Electoral College is functionally insignificant or abolished as an institution altogether.

[Saiwania]

Hillary Clinton only won the popular vote because of New York City and the state of California. Should those two places be allowed to determine the outcome of every presidential election? I think not. So the electoral college is clearly a better system than the popular vote.

[Galloism]

Hillary Clinton only won the popular vote because of New York City and the state of California. Should those two places be allowed to determine the outcome of every presidential election? I think not. So the electoral college is clearly a better system than the popular vote.

Only if you hate the concept of "one man, one vote". Which I think means such ones hate America.

[Shazbotdom]

Hillary Clinton only won the popular vote because of New York City and the state of California. Should those two places be allowed to determine the outcome of every presidential election? I think not. So the electoral college is clearly a better system than the popular vote.

Ummmm......
Have you read the last 3 pages of this thread? I doubt it.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Hillary Clinton only won the popular vote because of New York City and the state of California. Should those two places be allowed to determine the outcome of every presidential election? I think not. So the electoral college is clearly a better system than the popular vote.

Only if you hate the concept of "one man, one vote". Which I think means such ones hate America.

Is this the same America that, according to this argument, has consistently since its very inception denied the concept of 'one man, one vote' on the basis of the Electoral College alone (not to even mention the various other historical wrinkles)?

[Galloism]

Only if you hate the concept of "one man, one vote". Which I think means such ones hate America.

Is this the same America that, according to this argument, has consistently since its very inception denied the concept of 'one man, one vote' on the basis of the Electoral College alone (not to even mention the various other historical wrinkles)?

I'm one who thinks we can do better.

What can I say? I've become an idealist in my old age.

[Saiwania]

Historically speaking, the reason the US has an electoral college for the presidency is primarily because of slavery. The slave states had increased electoral power because they were able to have their slave population counted during censuses (albeit at 3/5ths of a person). Without the electoral college, the south would have lost every single election.

[Genivaria]

Historically speaking, the reason the US has an electoral college for the presidency is primarily because of slavery. The slave states had increased electoral power because they were able to have their slave population counted during censuses (albeit at 3/5ths of a person). Without the electoral college, the south would have lost every single election.

That's a fantastic argument against the EC.

[Galloism]

Historically speaking, the reason the US has an electoral college for the presidency is primarily because of slavery. The slave states had increased electoral power because they were able to have their slave population counted during censuses (albeit at 3/5ths of a person). Without the electoral college, the south would have lost every single election.

Of course, but we've moved past slavery as a viable thing.

Well, mostly.