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

[Spirit of Hope]

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.

Congratulations then, because under a well set up popular vote system New York and California wouldn't hold the entire nation to their whims. After all combined they have less than 20% of the US population, and of course not everyone in the either state votes in lockstep.

And say it would be mob rule is silly, 90% of the time the electoral college agrees with the popular vote and we haven't had mob rule in the US yet. No one here has seriously called for the Senate, House, or Supreme Court to be removed either, so all the checks and balances would still be in place.

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

Since the Electoral College discourages campaigning in all 50 states in favor of campaigning in 6 states I don't see much of a point in keeping it for a federal United States.

[The Nihilistic view]

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.

How many extra politicians would that rule create?

[Salandriagado]

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.

How many extra politicians would that rule create?

Wyoming has a representative:population ratio of 1:584,153. Scaling that up to the whole population would give a total of 546 Representatives. That's an extra 111.

[Venerable Bede]

Since the Electoral College discourages campaigning in all 50 states in favor of campaigning in 6 states I don't see much of a point in keeping it for a federal United States.

Making it purely popular wouldn't cause candidates to campaign all fifty states (especially since there wouldn't be any more states), they would probably fixate on areas of high population density, giving much less attention to areas where the population is spread more widely.

[WhatsamattaU]

Can we stop the whining about the election and the Electoral College?

[Valrifell]

Can we stop the whining about the election and the Electoral College?

Whining about the EC is only conveniently related to whining about the election. Just because 2016 is another example of the EC failing us does not make everyone against it partisan hacks.

[Venerable Bede]

Can we stop the whining about the election and the Electoral College?

Whining about the EC is only conveniently related to whining about the election. Just because 2016 is another example of the EC failing us does not make everyone against it partisan hacks.

The campaign strategy would probably have been different for both candidates of it was purely popular vote, so you can't really say the EC failed. The EC isn't intended to purely reflect the popular vote.

[Nazeroth]

This shit is only happening because the Democrats lost, either way someone would have bitched about the electoral college.

[Pandeeria]

This shit is only happening because the Democrats lost, either way someone would have bitched about the electoral college.

If it was the other way around, the Republicans would be bitching. Better to abolish the Electoral College so neither side can complain about it anymore.

[Marcurix]

Since the Electoral College discourages campaigning in all 50 states in favor of campaigning in 6 states I don't see much of a point in keeping it for a federal United States.

Making it purely popular wouldn't cause candidates to campaign all fifty states (especially since there wouldn't be any more states), they would probably fixate on areas of high population density, giving much less attention to areas where the population is spread more widely.

So in reality, nothing would change.

Because a big hitch about the current system is that candidates only focus on swing states.

[New haven america]

Can we stop the whining about the election and the Electoral College?

I've been fighting against it for about a decade now, and don't plan on stopping until it's gone.

[Gyrenaica]

Donald trump won the popular vote in 3,084 counties out of 3,141 counties across the county. If it were popular vote, 3,084 counties would be dissatisfied

Edit: PS, I'm libertarian, and I support the electoral college. It protects from the majority.

[Salandriagado]

Donald trump won the popular vote in 3,084 counties out of 3,141 counties across the county. If it were popular vote, 3,084 counties would be dissatisfied

Edit: PS, I'm libertarian, and I support the electoral college. It protects from the majority.

Who gives a fuck about counties?

[The Romulan Republic]

Donald trump won the popular vote in 3,084 counties out of 3,141 counties across the county. If it were popular vote, 3,084 counties would be dissatisfied

Edit: PS, I'm libertarian, and I support the electoral college. It protects from the majority.

Source please.

And in any case, zero counties would be dissatisfied, because counties are not people and do not have feelings. Nor are they homogenous blocks who's voters all share the view of the majority, however slight. Counties do not have rights. States do not have rights. People have rights, and the majority of people in this country are dissatisfied with the outcome.

And its funny how so many "libertarians" seem to favour measures to ensure the power of a small minority. Its almost like freedom to them means "freedom for me, none for anyone else".

[Valrifell]

Whining about the EC is only conveniently related to whining about the election. Just because 2016 is another example of the EC failing us does not make everyone against it partisan hacks.

The campaign strategy would probably have been different for both candidates of it was purely popular vote, so you can't really say the EC failed. The EC isn't intended to purely reflect the popular vote.

The EC is meant to represent people, isn't it? That's almost entirely the point of a Democratic Republic, a system where people elect representatives.

Also, you'll note that for the majority of all elections the EC has reflected the popular vote, just not in certain cases. Like this one. You'll also note that you don't need a majority of states or votes to become president. The whole thing breaks down even more when you throw in multiple candidates.

[The Romulan Republic]

My preferred system would be a nationwide popular vote, possibly with a run-off against the top two candidates if no one gets a majority the first go-around.

[Farnhamia]

The campaign strategy would probably have been different for both candidates of it was purely popular vote, so you can't really say the EC failed. The EC isn't intended to purely reflect the popular vote.

The EC is meant to represent people, isn't it? That's almost entirely the point of a Democratic Republic, a system where people elect representatives.

Also, you'll note that for the majority of all elections the EC has reflected the popular vote, just not in certain cases. Like this one. You'll also note that you don't need a majority of states or votes to become president. The whole thing breaks down even more when you throw in multiple candidates.

But it didn't break down in the 19th century, when multiple candidates was almost the rule, not an exception as it is now.

[Valrifell]

The EC is meant to represent people, isn't it? That's almost entirely the point of a Democratic Republic, a system where people elect representatives.

Also, you'll note that for the majority of all elections the EC has reflected the popular vote, just not in certain cases. Like this one. You'll also note that you don't need a majority of states or votes to become president. The whole thing breaks down even more when you throw in multiple candidates.

But it didn't break down in the 19th century, when multiple candidates was almost the rule, not an exception as it is now.

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.

[The Romulan Republic]

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.

I have rarely seen so much straw man in so few words. Kudos.

"mob rule". Nice fear-mongering. "Everyone gets equal representation in government" is not "mob rule".

Furthermore, New York and California, like all other states, are not homogenous blocks. Their are Democrats in those states, and Republicans, and people who support other options. Right now, only the Democrats' votes in those states generally count towards the result, because they have the most votes and the EC is winner take all. If you had a nation-wide popular vote, those votes would actually mean something. But you can't see that, apparently, because ironically you're still thinking in terms of "winning states", which only matters because of the EC.

Moreover, New York and California politicians would not rule anything. New York and California voters voting a certain way does not mean that those states' politicians suddenly dictate policy, because the politicians do not comprise all the voters of those states, and state-level politicians do not dictate to the President just because the President has the support of the voters of their state.

Never mind that even if you won every single voter in California and New York, that would be nowhere near enough to win on its own- you'd still have to campaign in other states. And you wouldn't win every single vote from California and New York, because they'd no longer be winner take all, so you'd have to get even more votes from other states to offset the votes in California and New York that went to other candidates.

Of course, the fact that you openly admit your reason for supporting the EC is to suppress the vote of liberal states pretty much speaks for itself. And hey, if that's you're reason, the EC is doing its job magnificently. The last two Republican Presidential victors both won against the will of the people because of the EC. As a tool of ensuring Republican dominance and denying Democrats an equal voice in government, it works like a charm.

[Venerable Bede]

The campaign strategy would probably have been different for both candidates of it was purely popular vote, so you can't really say the EC failed. The EC isn't intended to purely reflect the popular vote.

The EC is meant to represent people, isn't it? That's almost entirely the point of a Democratic Republic, a system where people elect representatives.

Also, you'll note that for the majority of all elections the EC has reflected the popular vote, just not in certain cases. Like this one. You'll also note that you don't need a majority of states or votes to become president. The whole thing breaks down even more when you throw in multiple candidates.

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

[The Romulan Republic]

The EC is meant to represent people, isn't it? That's almost entirely the point of a Democratic Republic, a system where people elect representatives.

Also, you'll note that for the majority of all elections the EC has reflected the popular vote, just not in certain cases. Like this one. You'll also note that you don't need a majority of states or votes to become president. The whole thing breaks down even more when you throw in multiple candidates.

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.

[Valrifell]

The EC is meant to represent people, isn't it? That's almost entirely the point of a Democratic Republic, a system where people elect representatives.

Also, you'll note that for the majority of all elections the EC has reflected the popular vote, just not in certain cases. Like this one. You'll also note that you don't need a majority of states or votes to become president. The whole thing breaks down even more when you throw in multiple candidates.

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.

[Occupied Deutschland]

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.

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.

[Farnhamia]

But it didn't break down in the 19th century, when multiple candidates was almost the rule, not an exception as it is now.

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.

[The Romulan Republic]

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.

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.