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

[Saiwania]

That's a fantastic argument against the EC.

No because clearly, the electoral college can still be used even if slavery has been abolished. Slavery was merely the context during which the electoral college system was created. It was one of the few means which the founders of the US had to even get the southern states on board for ratification of the US constitution, much less getting beyond the Articles of Confederation. It was extraordinarily difficult at the time to establish a federalist United States but much easier to let it continue being a loose collection of 13 self governing states with little to no cooperation.

[Stormaen]

The thing I find funniest, not just in this thread but the wider pro-popular vote/anti-EC movement, is that, pre-election, many media pundits actually predicted the exact opposite of the result we've just had: they said Trump would win the popular vote (47 to 46 are the numbers I remember) and that Hillary would win the EC vote. Many of those now calling for popular presidential elections were then defending the electoral college. One article I read (and I'm struggling to find it again) even went so far as to say that the electoral college was designed so populists like Trump couldn't win. I chuckle looking back.

I think the Electoral College perhaps needs changing, but I don't think it should be abandoned. It protects smaller states' interests and, at least every 4 years, gives them a bigger voice. I do think, however, that the number involved probably need seriously updating. After all, California is vastly underrepresented. Hence, the Wyoming rule: "The Wyoming Rule is a proposal to increase the size of the United States House of Representatives so that the standard representative-to-population ratio would be that of the smallest entitled unit, which is currently Wyoming." (Wikipedia) This would naturally then be reflected in the Electoral College.

[Trotskylvania]

The thing I find funniest, not just in this thread but the wider pro-popular vote/anti-EC movement, is that, pre-election, many media pundits actually predicted the exact opposite of the result we've just had: they said Trump would win the popular vote (47 to 46 are the numbers I remember) and that Hillary would win the EC vote. Many of those now calling for popular presidential elections were then defending the electoral college. One article I read (and I'm struggling to find it again) even went so far as to say that the electoral college was designed so populists like Trump couldn't win. I chuckle looking back.

I think the Electoral College perhaps needs changing, but I don't think it should be abandoned. It protects smaller states' interests and, at least every 4 years, gives them a bigger voice. I do think, however, that the number involved probably need seriously updating. After all, California is vastly underrepresented. Hence, the Wyoming rule: "The Wyoming Rule is a proposal to increase the size of the United States House of Representatives so that the standard representative-to-population ratio would be that of the smallest entitled unit, which is currently Wyoming." (Wikipedia) This would naturally then be reflected in the Electoral College.

I'm am almost certain that you're not remembering this election season properly. Because even at the most dire in pre-election polling, Hillary Clinton always had a national level lead over Trump. Any suggestions of a Trump popular vote win and electoral loss were fringe, and highly mathematically unlikely. Trump's support in the smaller states and general narrower margins in all but a few states precluded the possibility of winning the popular vote while simultaneously losing the electoral vote.

[WhatsamattaU]

The thing I find funniest, not just in this thread but the wider pro-popular vote/anti-EC movement, is that, pre-election, many media pundits actually predicted the exact opposite of the result we've just had: they said Trump would win the popular vote (47 to 46 are the numbers I remember) and that Hillary would win the EC vote. Many of those now calling for popular presidential elections were then defending the electoral college. One article I read (and I'm struggling to find it again) even went so far as to say that the electoral college was designed so populists like Trump couldn't win. I chuckle looking back.

I think the Electoral College perhaps needs changing, but I don't think it should be abandoned. It protects smaller states' interests and, at least every 4 years, gives them a bigger voice. I do think, however, that the number involved probably need seriously updating. After all, California is vastly underrepresented. Hence, the Wyoming rule: "The Wyoming Rule is a proposal to increase the size of the United States House of Representatives so that the standard representative-to-population ratio would be that of the smallest entitled unit, which is currently Wyoming." (Wikipedia) This would naturally then be reflected in the Electoral College.

I'm am almost certain that you're not remembering this election season properly. Because even at the most dire in pre-election polling, Hillary Clinton always had a national level lead over Trump. Any suggestions of a Trump popular vote win and electoral loss were fringe, and highly mathematically unlikely. Trump's support in the smaller states and general narrower margins in all but a few states precluded the possibility of winning the popular vote while simultaneously losing the electoral vote.

Earlier this year, I think that I remember there may have been a period of about a week where the political polls predicted a popular vote of Trump over Clinton, however I can't find it without a time consuming search.

But, again, the EC is not going away without a Constitutional Amendment or a Constitutional Convention, so let's just deal with what we have.

[Noahs Second Country]

From the current vote tallies, it seems Clinton got more of the popular vote than Trump did. This makes her the 5th candidate in U.S. history to win the popular vote but lose the electoral college. The electoral college is old and is undemocratic in my view, it favours larger states like FL, TX, and CA over smaller states like Utah, Montana, etc. I believe the U.S. should switch to a popular vote mechanism for deciding future presidential elections. It is more democratic and fair.
What do you guys think?

Not sure if anyone said this already... but my point: Do you want candidates to campaign all over the U.S., or do you want campaigning in 4 major cities?
You are really voting for your elector, not the president.

[Noahs Second Country]

From the current vote tallies, it seems Clinton got more of the popular vote than Trump did. This makes her the 5th candidate in U.S. history to win the popular vote but lose the electoral college. The electoral college is old and is undemocratic in my view, it favours larger states like FL, TX, and CA over smaller states like Utah, Montana, etc. I believe the U.S. should switch to a popular vote mechanism for deciding future presidential elections. It is more democratic and fair.
What do you guys think?

Not sure if anyone said this already... but my point: Do you want candidates to campaign all over the U.S., or do you want campaigning in 4 major cities?
You are really voting for your elector, not the president.

[Lost heros]

I think that if we keep the electoral college, we should just drop the whole facade of democracy and just put the list of electors we're actually voting for and then leave note saying you're vote only has a 50% chance of actually counting for the group of oligarchs you decided to decide the president for you.

[Spirit of Hope]

From the current vote tallies, it seems Clinton got more of the popular vote than Trump did. This makes her the 5th candidate in U.S. history to win the popular vote but lose the electoral college. The electoral college is old and is undemocratic in my view, it favours larger states like FL, TX, and CA over smaller states like Utah, Montana, etc. I believe the U.S. should switch to a popular vote mechanism for deciding future presidential elections. It is more democratic and fair.
What do you guys think?

Not sure if anyone said this already... but my point: Do you want candidates to campaign all over the U.S., or do you want campaigning in 4 major cities?
You are really voting for your elector, not the president.

The Electoral College dissuades candidates from campaigning all over the US. It makes them to campaign in a small number of battle ground states. Something like 2/3rds of candidates time is spent in just six states.

Secondly the top 10 major urban centers (which are made up of lots of cities) account for less than a quarter of the US population. Any candidate that campaigned in only the four largest cities would loose.

Saying we actually vote for electors and not the president is basically a lie. The electors pledge to vote for a candidate, and a number of states require, by law, they vote as they pledge.

[Great Nepal]

From the current vote tallies, it seems Clinton got more of the popular vote than Trump did. This makes her the 5th candidate in U.S. history to win the popular vote but lose the electoral college. The electoral college is old and is undemocratic in my view, it favours larger states like FL, TX, and CA over smaller states like Utah, Montana, etc. I believe the U.S. should switch to a popular vote mechanism for deciding future presidential elections. It is more democratic and fair.
What do you guys think?

Not sure if anyone said this already... but my point: Do you want candidates to campaign all over the U.S., or do you want campaigning in 4 major cities?
You are really voting for your elector, not the president.

Wow look at that all the national campaigning going on with Electoral College!
Disclaimer: map from 2012

[Everhall]

From the current vote tallies, it seems Clinton got more of the popular vote than Trump did. This makes her the 5th candidate in U.S. history to win the popular vote but lose the electoral college. The electoral college is old and is undemocratic in my view, it favours larger states like FL, TX, and CA over smaller states like Utah, Montana, etc. I believe the U.S. should switch to a popular vote mechanism for deciding future presidential elections. It is more democratic and fair.
What do you guys think?

Not sure if anyone said this already... but my point: Do you want candidates to campaign all over the U.S., or do you want campaigning in 4 major cities?
You are really voting for your elector, not the president.

Sounds like a reasonable argument, but ignores the math of population distribution. 9 million people live in New York out of about 350,000,000. The number drops fast to 3.8 Million in LA. Even if you took all the next hundred populous cities all the was to Spokane, WV (200,000) that isn't even a third of the population.

[Prosorusiya]

No, but we should move to a new Constitution because the current one obviously has failed.

We need to move more towards a system where representation is proportional ala Europe, rather than a first past the post system of voting. And maybe ban people from the Presidency who have not had any political experience, so we don't waste our time on people like Carson who don't know what they are doing. We should also move to a system of collective leadership rather than having the country be led by a strong man, a situation which is clearly unstable and the breeding ground for tyranny. The Supreme Court also need to be enshrined in writing in the new constitution and strengthened in power. States need to be abolished, because state governments are dangerous to the unity and solidarity of a nation and are a breeding ground for corruption, racism, and treason.

[WhatsamattaU]

No, but we should move to a new Constitution because the current one obviously has failed.

We need to move more towards a system where representation is proportional ala Europe, rather than a first past the post system of voting. And maybe ban people from the Presidency who have not had any political experience, so we don't waste our time on people like Carson who don't know what they are doing. We should also move to a system of collective leadership rather than having the country be led by a strong man, a situation which is clearly unstable and the breeding ground for tyranny. The Supreme Court also need to be enshrined in writing in the new constitution and strengthened in power. States need to be abolished, because state governments are dangerous to the unity and solidarity of a nation and are a breeding ground for corruption, racism, and treason.

People in different geographies have different needs.
A "one size fits all" approach is silly.
If you've ever been an officer in a home owners'should association, you'don't see that direct democracy on every little issue is madness.
As for "strong men", do you want to be represented by the weak? And if you want to talk about bullies, then look at our last President.
Speaking of which, I hope the Nobel Prize Committee feels stupid about awarding him the Peace Prize before he was even inaugurated.

[Socialist Nordia]

No, but we should move to a new Constitution because the current one obviously has failed.

We need to move more towards a system where representation is proportional ala Europe, rather than a first past the post system of voting. And maybe ban people from the Presidency who have not had any political experience, so we don't waste our time on people like Carson who don't know what they are doing. We should also move to a system of collective leadership rather than having the country be led by a strong man, a situation which is clearly unstable and the breeding ground for tyranny. The Supreme Court also need to be enshrined in writing in the new constitution and strengthened in power. States need to be abolished, because state governments are dangerous to the unity and solidarity of a nation and are a breeding ground for corruption, racism, and treason.

People in different geographies have different needs.
A "one size fits all" approach is silly.
If you've ever been an officer in a home owners'should association, you'don't see that direct democracy on every little issue is madness.
As for "strong men", do you want to be represented by the weak? And if you want to talk about bullies, then look at our last President.
Speaking of which, I hope the Nobel Prize Committee feels stupid about awarding him the Peace Prize before he was even inaugurated.

How the hell can obama be remotely considered a bully?

[The Romulan Republic]

Not sure if anyone said this already... but my point: Do you want candidates to campaign all over the U.S., or do you want campaigning in 4 major cities?
You are really voting for your elector, not the president.

The Electoral College dissuades candidates from campaigning all over the US. It makes them to campaign in a small number of battle ground states. Something like 2/3rds of candidates time is spent in just six states.

Secondly the top 10 major urban centers (which are made up of lots of cities) account for less than a quarter of the US population. Any candidate that campaigned in only the four largest cities would loose.

Saying we actually vote for electors and not the president is basically a lie. The electors pledge to vote for a candidate, and a number of states require, by law, they vote as they pledge.

It is not a lie. Their is no national requirement for electors to vote the way their state voted, not all states have penalties against faithless electors, and those that do usually have relatively light penalties.

[The Romulan Republic]

Not sure if anyone said this already... but my point: Do you want candidates to campaign all over the U.S., or do you want campaigning in 4 major cities?
You are really voting for your elector, not the president.

Wow look at that all the national campaigning going on with Electoral College!
Disclaimer: map from 2012

Is it just me, or does Florida look even more phallic than normal in that picture?

[Spirit of Hope]

The Electoral College dissuades candidates from campaigning all over the US. It makes them to campaign in a small number of battle ground states. Something like 2/3rds of candidates time is spent in just six states.

Secondly the top 10 major urban centers (which are made up of lots of cities) account for less than a quarter of the US population. Any candidate that campaigned in only the four largest cities would loose.

Saying we actually vote for electors and not the president is basically a lie. The electors pledge to vote for a candidate, and a number of states require, by law, they vote as they pledge.

It is not a lie. Their is no national requirement for electors to vote the way their state voted, not all states have penalties against faithless electors, and those that do usually have relatively light penalties.

The fact of the mater is that while technically electors have discretionary power, in some cases, in reality they basically never actually vote against the candidate they are pledged to. They are specifically chosen to decrease the chance of voting against the choice of the state.

The only time in US history that the Electors actually acted like electors was with Washington in the first two elections. Since then they have overwhelmingly voted as pledged, meaning that the idea that they gather and choose the president is silly, it is a formality of a system that never worked as intended.

[The Romulan Republic]

It is not a lie. Their is no national requirement for electors to vote the way their state voted, not all states have penalties against faithless electors, and those that do usually have relatively light penalties.

The fact of the mater is that while technically electors have discretionary power, in some cases, in reality they basically never actually vote against the candidate they are pledged to. They are specifically chosen to decrease the chance of voting against the choice of the state.

The only time in US history that the Electors actually acted like electors was with Washington in the first two elections. Since then they have overwhelmingly voted as pledged, meaning that the idea that they gather and choose the president is silly, it is a formality of a system that never worked as intended.

Their have been a number of instances where electors have gone against their state, and their might be some more shortly. Two Washington State electors pledged to not vote for Clinton under any conditions this election, for example, while a couple of others from red states suggested that they would not necessarily vote for Trump.

Its not generally in large enough numbers to change the result, but in a very close race, it could happen.

And if it doesn't, then the EC still makes it possible for an election result to go against the popular vote, so its still shit.

And if it did neither of those things, it would just be a useless, wasteful anachronism.

[Spirit of Hope]

The fact of the mater is that while technically electors have discretionary power, in some cases, in reality they basically never actually vote against the candidate they are pledged to. They are specifically chosen to decrease the chance of voting against the choice of the state.

The only time in US history that the Electors actually acted like electors was with Washington in the first two elections. Since then they have overwhelmingly voted as pledged, meaning that the idea that they gather and choose the president is silly, it is a formality of a system that never worked as intended.

Their have been a number of instances where electors have gone against their state, and their might be some more shortly. Two Washington State electors pledged to not vote for Clinton under any conditions this election, for example, while a couple of others from red states suggested that they would not necessarily vote for Trump.

They have never done so in any cases where it would change the election results. Against the number of electoral college votes cast the number of faithless electors is insignificant.

Its not generally in large enough numbers to change the result, but in a very close race, it could happen.

And if it doesn't, then the EC still makes it possible for an election result to go against the popular vote, so its still shit.

And if it did neither of those things, it would just be a useless, wasteful anachronism.

Oh I agree it is bad, no argument here. I've been arguing for it's removal for years.

[Freiheidt]

I actually believe we should expand the electoral college and eliminate voting altogether. An educated body of people would be superior to the uneducated populace. So long as we actually had an educated group of people in the EC.

[Socialist Nordia]

I actually believe we should expand the electoral college and eliminate voting altogether. An educated body of people would be superior to the uneducated populace. So long as we actually had an educated group of people in the EC.

Well, I think they're usually chosen by the state republican or Democratic Party, depending on who won, IIRC.

Anyway, that's an awful idea.

[Forsher]

It's not broken if that is what the system is intended to do.

In one way, yes. In another, much more meaningful way, oh so very wrong. The intention is "broken". We who live now, the argument goes, should decide our fate, not those who lived then.

No because big cities would rule the popular vote and voter fraud would be easier.

Why would voter fraud be easier?

The first claim has been shown to have no rational basis, time and time again. My grandfather likes golf and last time I visited him some years back (he lives overseas) we went to a golf course. And you know what he said? Well, I can't remember exactly but it was something like this, "The thing about golf is that what seems natural/obvious is wrong". I'm not sure if that's the case in golf (the problem from my perspective was that the handle was shredding my hands), but it's certainly the case here.

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.

I saw an interesting angle on this (I guessin this thread) which questions how the College primarily considers states, but it's easy to require a majority of states without giving them strictly the same power: get 270 electoral votes and 26 "states" (because DC). However, my gut feeling is that this would be worse... but I am not a fan of states regardless.

In a democracy, the people govern directly.

That's direct democracy.

If your point involves using words in ways that don't make sense (except to people who agree with you), then you should probably rethink your point. If your point involves using words that lead to unhelpful dichotomies, then doubly so.

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.

This is insane.

As Trump has pointed out... things would've been done differently had the election been run according to democratic* principles (e.g. if Americans knew what wasted vote was) so you can't leap to this conclusion. And, in the context of this election as it was run, Clinton won the popular vote because the race was very narrow in swing states, so Clinton's supporters in the only states that anyone outside of the US cares about** built on an already sizeable popular vote.

*Note, not direct democratic... in fact, I dispute that direct democracy is aligned with democratic principles anyway.

**Because if it's not in New York, it's in California. My little joke. (To be honest, we can also add, wait for it, Chicago... no-one knows what Illinois is... and Texas, but if I was honest, it wouldn't be funny. If DC was a state we'd have to add that too, but it isn't, so we don't.)

And maybe ban people from the Presidency who have not had any political experience, so we don't waste our time on people like Carson who don't know what they are doing.

Good God, no. The US is already way too restrictive in terms of who can be president, it certainly doesn't need a further anti-democratic bent.

[The United Providences of Perland]

Yes, yes it should.

[Prosorusiya]

I should point out I did not say that I would support direct democracy, but rather representational democracy on the European system where the vote of the people is represented proportionally, i.e. If a party wins 25% of the vote they win 25% of the seats in the legislature. Furthermore, I would not abolish local governments, merely bring them under national control. As stated. History shows that confederations of multiple states leads to Republics falling and internal inconsistency in the rule of law (I can see why sewage treatment needs in Texas and Minnestoa would vary geographically, but Gay Marraige? How is it less constitutional in Texas than say New York (hint it ain't)). As a scholar of the Civil War and antebellum period, I have no paintence for state governments.

Our whole system of government is made to be weak so that no one supposedly can gain control over it. That this balance has been screwed since the Gulf of Tonkin, where the Presidency gained way to much power and started fighting undeclared wars in other countries was a leathal shift in the delicate balanence of power. Collective leadership would restore that power balance maybe by having an executive committee in congress, like a triumvirate, a perfectly workable system that dates back to the Romans. I'd also strengthen the Supreame Court and codify their current powers if we were to do it over again. I'd let them appoint all other judges in the Us. Judges have no bisuness being elected, and no election is a real election if you are running unopposed. Where's the democracy in having only one choice of candidate?

I'll back away from my eligibility statement, it is a step too far. I'm just sick of personality based campaign where half the candidates qualifications are that they are Washignron outsiders and also village idiots. Last time around it was almost even worse... what happened to issues based campaigning?

[Nazeroth]

Nah, I don't like mob rule thanks.

the entire nation shouldn't be held to the wims of New York and California and their insane politicians.

[Venerable Bede]

Not as long as we're a federation. If we de-federalized, then yes, popular vote would make more sense.